<!--This file created 1/13/00 8:40 PM by Claris Home Page version 2.0--><HTML><HEAD>   <TITLE>Introduction: Letters To A Mormon Elder</TITLE>   <META NAME=GENERATOR CONTENT="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">   <X-SAS-WINDOW TOP=90 BOTTOM=480 LEFT=12 RIGHT=631></HEAD><BODY BGCOLOR="#CACACA" LINK="#0000EE"VLINK="#551A8B" background="backgrou.gif"><H1><CENTER><font face="Verdana" size="5">Letters To A Mormon Elder</font></CENTER></H1><H1><CENTER><font size="5" face="Verdana">&nbsp;by James R. White </font></CENTER></H1><h1><hr size="1" width="100%" color="#cccccc"><p align="justify" style="margin-top: 4; margin-left:15"><font face="Verdana" size="1"><i><b>Forward</b></h1></i> -- Nearly everyone likes to read someone else's mail. James White allows us to look over his shoulder as he writes a series of friendly and penetrating letters addressed to a Mormon elder who might be any one of the many he has met. He draws upon hundreds of hours of discussions with Mormon missionaries and dedicated members of the Mormon Church encountered through his work with Alpha and Omega Ministries.<br><br>We urge you to peek over James' shoulder and follow the vital truths he presents.<br><br></p><P><HR SIZE="10"><h1><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#AF0000" face="Verdana">Introduction</FONT></h1></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">I had been married only a few months when Ireceived a phone call from my sister-in-law. Two young Mormonmissionaries had come to her door, and she had made an appointment totalk with them the next Monday. Could I come over and help her </FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">At the time, I knew little about the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormonism. I had read one bookon the subject, and had run into an LDS lady while making an outreachvisit for my church a few years before. I had a few days to "boneup," so I re-read my one book on Mormonism and went back over my listof memory verses.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">On the appointed day two young gentlemen came tothe door of my sister-in-law's home. Elders Reed and Reese, both 19years of age, introduced themselves and sat down. I don't recall manyof the specifics of the conversation that day. I know we talked aboutgrace and works, baptism -- the normal areas of discussion aboutsalvation that come up. I remember being impressed with the honestyof the missionaries, for they even came right out and said "we arenot Bible scholars, and we will have to look into that verse you justquoted and get back to you on that." The conversation was friendly,and they agreed to come back in three days -- on Thursdayafternoon.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">When they left, my wife, her sister, and I satdown and sort of looked at each other. I had some firm convictions asa result of our talk: first, that I didn't know nearly enough aboutMormons or their beliefs to effectively share the gospel with them.Second, I didn't know my own faith well enough to accurately andsuccinctly express it to someone such as a Mormon missionary. I had alot of work to do.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">In the intervening days I read three or four morebooks on Mormonism. I was amazed at what I found. I began makingextensive notes on the differences between what I saw as Biblicalteaching and that of the LDS Church. I visited my first LDS bookstoreand bought my first Book of Mormon.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">I read of the supposed visit of Jesus to theAmericas in 3rd Nephi, and was immediately struck by the differencesbetween the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I also began to realizethat in our first discussion we had been "speaking differentlanguages." That is, they were speaking Mormonese and I was speakingChristianese -- using the same terms, but meaning very differentthings. I began to see how confusing the whole situation could be forthose with less Biblical background than I. When I met again withElders Reed and Reese, I felt a little better prepared. This time Iunderstood more of what they were trying to say, and was better ableto communicate with them in their own language. We spoke of God, andtheir concept that He was once a man over against the Bible's clearteaching that He had always been God and would always be God. I doremember clearly how that meeting finished. with every ounce ofconcern and love in my heart. I spoke to them of the vast differencebetween salvation offered by the unchangeable, eternal and omnipotentGod, and the salvation they presented, based as it was upon a beingwho changed and evolved, and might do so again tomorrow. With that weparted company.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Elders Reed and Reese don't know how much theyimpacted my life. Of course I now see the providential hand of God inthat meeting, but at the time I had absolutely no idea how importantthose two meetings would be. Of course, they had no intention ofspurring me on to found Alpha and Omega Ministries and to producemany tracts and materials for sharing the gospel with Mormons. Butthat is exactly what happened. God put a fire in my heart for sharingwith Latter-day Saints that burns brightly to this day.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Following those meetings I began to become aregular at the local LDS bookstore. I was reading both LDS andChristian books at the same time. Each time I would find a particularMormon work being cited with any frequency by Christian writers, Iwould run and get the book and read it, too. I discovered thewonderful books written by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, by far the mostextensively researched materials around. I also began to notice thata strange set of books called The Journal of Discourses was beingcited over and over again, primarily in discussing the early Mormontheological views. So, I headed down to the Mormon bookstore to buythem, though I had no idea what they looked like or what they wouldcost. Imagine my surprise when, upon asking for The Journal ofDiscourses, I was directed to a 26-volume set of books high up on ashelf! The first thought in my mind was, "what will my wife think ofthis" But, I bought them anyway, and in retrospect I can again seethe hand of God, for they then went out of print for a couple ofyears, and they were indeed a great help in doing research intoMormon theology. Next, I asked those in charge of the "ChristianTraining" section of the church I was attending if I could teach a13-week class on the Mormon Church. I wanted to share all theinformation I was getting from my reading. That class led directly tothe founding of Alpha and Omega Ministries, for it was there thatsome of our most important people came together to learn to share thegospel with Mormons. One of those who attended, Michael Beliveau,commented after one class that "we should start a group to witness toMormons." I sort of smiled at the idea, but it kept coming back intomy thinking, so much so that a few months later, when speaking with aChristian attorney, I asked him about the possibilities of starting anon-profit ministry. He put the papers together very quickly, andAlpha and Omega Ministries was born. We began with a couple of books,a photocopied tract, and four people -- myself and my wife Kelli, andMike and Linda Beliveau. We had no idea what God had in store for thefuture. All we knew is that we wanted to share the truth with Mormonpeople, and anyone else for that matter.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">If you want to witness to Mormons, try going wherethey are! That is exactly what we did. The Mormon Church sponsors an"Easter Pageant" on the front lawn of the Arizona Temple in Mesa,Arizona. Anywhere from 60,000 to 75,000 people attend during theweek-long presentation. The vast majority of people have to park onpublic parking and walk across the street to get to the seating, sowe took the opportunity of being there to pass out tracts and sharethe gospel. We've been doing the same thing ever since. Dozens ofMormon missionaries are present to pass out programs (along with a"free" offer of a Book of Mormon, that arrives at one's home attachedto two smiling missionaries!), and we have never missed theopportunity of sharing with these young men. As many as 30 peoplehave worked with us at one time in distributing tracts and presentingthe truth of the Word of God during the Easter Pageant. Theexperiences I have had in sharing with Mormons one-on-one or one-ontwenty on the sidewalks of Mesa will form part of the basis fromwhich the following letters to a Mormon Elder is drawn.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">But tracting the Easter Pageant once a year wasnot enough. Michael and I soon ventured north to the state of Utah.We jokingly referred to it as "foreign missions work," but there aremany ways in which that is not an untruth.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">We arrived in Salt Lake on a sunny day, andquickly recognized that Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City isthe ideal tracting spot. Why Well, there are only three gates ontothe square containing the Temple and the Mormon Tabernacle along withthe two modern, impressive visitor's centers. During the week, themembers who are going into the Temple to do their temple work enterthrough one gate on the northeast corner. Two people can cover thatone gate with no difficulty at all, which is what we proceeded to do.One might think that two young Christians in the midst of the hustleand bustle of downtown Salt Lake City, surrounded by LDS folks whoreally did not appreciate our presence, would be either naive(possibly) or foolhardy, or both. But we learned a lot, and came backwith another idea that would shape the future of our ministry. </FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Every six months, on the first weekend in Apriland the first weekend in October, the Mormon Church holds it'ssemi-annual "General Conference." Tens of thousands of Mormons packinto the Temple Square to hear the "Prophet" and the "Apostles"speak. And nearly every single one of those folks has to walk acrosspublic access sidewalks and through one of those three gates to getin. The first time we witnessed at the General Conference, we had allof three people.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Mike and I at least had an idea what to expect;our newest volunteer got a lot of "training" on the road north! Wetook up stations at the North Gate, and, quite honestly, within a fewhours there was a line of people waiting to talk to each of us! SoonI heard a cry for help from our newest volunteer, and, wading throughthe crowd, I found him backed up against the gate, surrounded by atleast ten LDS folks, all throwing questions at him. Once I extricatedhim from his predicament, he stuck real close for the rest of theday.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">That was the first of what to this date has beentwelve consecutive trips to the General Conference of the MormonChurch in Salt Lake. Every time the LDS Church has met for the pastsix years, I have been present to share with them. We have had asmany as 18 people in Salt Lake, quite a sufficient number toadequately cover all three gates and then some. I have had long,intense conversations with individuals, and have had loud, difficultconversations with entire crowds of Mormon missionaries, numberingover 25 at a time. I've spoken with young and old, men and women. Thepeople who attend the Conference can be some of the "hardest" peoplewith whom to speak. Many are former missionaries, and almost all ofthem think that we poor souls outside the gates are utterly unawareof even the first thing about the LDS Church. Despite the obviouslyvolatile situation, we have been blessed of God in our work, and havehad the wonderful opportunity of meeting people who have come up tous and said, "I took one of your tracts two years ago just to proveyou wrong. Once I started studying, though, I found out you wereright, and I am now a member of a local Christian church." </FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">At both the General Conference and the MormonEaster Pageant, it has been our goal to share the Gospel with thehighest integrity. To accomplish this goal we are careful to providein-depth training for all those who would be involved with us in ourwork. Starting months before these missions opportunities, we holdseminars and training classes, drilling the believers in thedoctrines of the faith, and training them in Mormon belief. A popularelement of this training is our role-playing, where I and other"veterans" of front-line missions work take on the role of theMormon, and present to the volunteers the common objections they willface in their work.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Why this history of Alpha and Omega Ministries andmy own involvement in missions work to the Mormons? It is readilyadmitted that our work with Mormons is not all that we do -- we areactively involved in sharing with Jehovah's Witnesses, RomanCatholics, atheists -- we work in the entire realm of Christianapologetics. However, that work has remained one of our greatestpriorities. My extensive experience in sharing with LDS peopleone-on-one on the street corner forms an important part of the basisupon which this book, and the letters it contains, is written. Overthe past few years I have spoken with well over 1,200 Mormonmissionaries in Arizona and Utah, and an equal number of plain Mormonfolk. I have corresponded with many, many Mormon elders as well. I amnot a newcomer to the field, simply applying high-sounding theology Iearned in seminary to a problem of cult evangelism -- I have takenwhat is in this book right to the gates of the Temple in Salt Lake,and have tested and proven it there. The information contained in thefollowing pages is drawn not simply from the theological classroom orfrom the reading of this book or that; it comes as well from hundredsand hundreds of hours of witnessing to Mormon people and listeningclosely to their responses.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">The need for Christians to be prepared to answerthe challenges of the LDS Church hardly needs to be emphasized. Mostreal believers know the danger presented to the Christian Church bythe counterfeit Christianity that is Mormonism. The average Mormon isfar better prepared to deal with the Christian than vice-versa. It ishoped that this work will help countless believers fulfill theirlonging to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within,yet with gentleness and reverence.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">A word concerning the format of this work. Mostworks on Mormonism address each of the various doctrinal orhistorical issues in a chapter by chapter format. I have chosen notto repeat what has been done by others in the past. Rather, byplacing the information concerning Mormonism into the form ofletters, I hope to also provide help in knowing how to present theinformation when the opportunity arises. This way the information ispresented in a practical way, one that, it is hoped, will provideneeded encouragement and direction to those who will share thisinformation with LDS friends, relatives, and acquaintances. Also,there are a number of excellent works on Mormonism that do atremendous job addressing the many historical issues relevant to theLDS faith. It is not my intention to attempt to "recreate the wheel"when people such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner have put so much time,and so much effort, into providing the Christian community withwell-researched, solid information that is presented with the highestlevel of integrity. The reader is directed to their many, many fineworks for in-depth material on the history and practices of the LDSChurch. Therefore, only three "letters" will deal with specifichistorical issues such as the Book of Mormon, false prophecies ofJoseph Smith, etc. The primary thrust of this work is to "fill in"where many other works do not -- that being to provide a theologicalresponse to the LDS Church.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">James White</FONT></P><P><HR SIZE="10"><font face="Verdana"><h1><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#AF0000">Letter 1 -- What is Truth?</FONT></h1> </font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Monday, May 21st </FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Dear Elder Hahn, </FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">I wanted to write and thank you for the time youspent with my wife and I last Friday evening. We enjoyed yourcompany. Given that you indicated that your partner, Elder Young,would be transferring out this past weekend, I decided to write toyou specifically. If you get a chance, please feel free to forwardour correspondence to Elder Young, as he seemed interested in thetopics we discussed. We touched on quite a number of different topicsFriday evening, many of which I wanted to expand upon, but could not,given the time constraints we were under. If you are willing, I wouldlike to go into some of those areas with you by mail, as I realizethat your busy schedule will not allow you to spend a great deal oftime visiting me in my home. I would like to say, however, that Iwould be more than willing to travel to meet with you, if you wouldlike. Just let me know a convenient time. Before I go into anyparticular doctrines or teachings that were considered that evening,I wanted to talk with you about the last thing you said as we weresaying good-bye. As I recall, it went something like this: </font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">"Despite all we've discussed, Mr. White, I   want to bear you my testimony that I know that the Church of Jesus   Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church, that Jesus is the   Christ, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Further, I   bear you my testimony that Ezra Taft Benson is a prophet of God. I   have prayed about the book of Mormon, and have received a   testimony of the Holy Ghost that it is true." </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">At that time I just quickly mentioned to you theimportance of comparing one's feelings to the clear, inspiredrevelation of God, the Bible. At that point you had to leave. I wouldlike to pick up with your testimony, if you don't mind. First, I wantto say that I respect you immensely for what you do. Not many youngpeople today would be willing to give two years of their lives to thework of their church. Even beyond this, you have obviously studiedyour faith, and seem to honestly desire to share that faith withothers. In our world today, that is a rare attitude indeed. But, aswe discussed, I do not believe that what you are preaching is thetrue Gospel of Jesus Christ. We both know people who are honest,kind, and moral, but who teach falsehood about Jesus Christ and HisGospel. For example, we both have encountered Jehovah's Witnesses asthey go door-to-door preaching their version of the truth. You and Iagree that the Witnesses are wrong in their teaching -- they believethat Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel, Jehovah's firstcreation. You and I agree that that is in error. Therefore, no matterhow honest or sincere the Witness at my door might be, they are inerror! In the same way, you believe me to be in error, though I wouldhope that you would admit my honesty and sincerity with regards to myreligious faith. And, from my perspective, you too are in error,though I freely admit your sincere feelings regarding your beliefs.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">So what I am saying is this: you can be sincere,but be sincerely <B>wrong.</B> I know sincere Buddhists, sincere Muslims, even sincereatheists -- but they are wrong, no matter how sincere they mightthink themselves to be. Truth exists, and we are responsible for howwe relate to that truth. If we deny the truth, even if we have beentaught from childhood on up to do so, we are wrong all the same. Whatis right is right, what is wrong is wrong. Truth exists independentlyof either you or I. You do not "define" truth, and I do not "define"truth. And let us flee quickly from the all-too common thinking ofthe world today, "well, you have your truth, and I have my truth...."Such is nonsense. Truth is truth, and it will be true whether Ibelieve it to be true or not. But, I doubt we disagree about that. Weboth share the belief that truth exists, and that it can be known.Where we disagree is exactly <I>what thattruth is.</I> </font></P><P><font face="Verdana">In your testimony, you mentioned that you hadprayed about the Book of Mormon, and <B>knew</B> that it was true. ElderHahn, may I point out to you that I too have a testimony, and mytestimony is in direct conflict with yours I believe that the Spirithas testified to me that there is but one God, and this is out ofharmony with your own beliefs. How, then, are we to decide who isright You honestly say that you have experienced feelings that youinterpret to be the testimony of the Holy Ghost. I say the samething. Yet, what we feel has been "revealed" by the Holy Ghost is incontradiction. If we leave it at this, no one can ever say "this istrue, this is not" since we are back to saying that each person hashis or her own truth. So how can we know</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">"There is a way which seemeth right unto a   man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs   14:12) </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">If we trust in our feelings, Elder Hahn, in thatwhich we <B>feel</B> is"right," we can find ourselves in grave danger. Many a man has "felt"that this or that belief or path was "right," but the end of thatpath proved to be nothing but death and destruction. We cannot trustin our feelings to guide us properly. The writer of Proverbs said,"He <I>that trusteth in his own heart is afool</I> " (Proverbs 28:26), and Jeremiahsaid,</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">"The heart is deceitful above all things, and   desperately wicked: who can know it" (Jeremiah 17:9) </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Any man who thinks his heart a faithful and safeguide knows very little about the evil and wickedness that lurks inits dark recesses. You know how easily you <B>can</B> rationalize evil behavior,and how simple it is to <B>convince</B> yourself that what youare doing is right, when in fact, it is wrong. If you are honest withyour own heart, you know this to be the case. So, how can youpossibly trust your feelings with reference to the truth of yourchurch What if your feelings are <B>wrong</B> How can you know one wayor the other Thankfully, the Bible gives us the answer. There issomething which is unchanging, unlike our feelings. There issomething that tells us the truth at all times, again, unlike ourfeelings. That something is the Word of God. Listen to these passagesfrom the Bible:</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield   unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his   words, lest he reprove thee, and thou he found a liar." (Proverbs   30:5) </font>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">"Whoso despiseth the word shall he destroyed:   but he that feareth the commandment shall he rewarded." (Proverbs   13:13)</FONT></P>      <P><font face="Verdana">"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but   the word of our God shall stand for ever." Isaiah 40:8) </font>   </P></DL><P><font face="Verdana">And we should not forget the words of the LordJesus, where He spoke the same truth by saying, "<I>Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall notpass away" </I>(Matthew 24:35). The sure,unchanging Word of God provides us with the basis and definition oftruth itself. While we may feel one way one day, and totallydifferent another, the Bible does not change. Its message is notaltered by the changing, shifting moods of man. When Paul and Silasentered into the city of Berea (as recorded in Acts chapter 17), theypreached the Gospel. The Bereans had never heard this message before-- it was totally new to them. How, then, did they determine whetherit was true or false Does the Bible tell us that they dropped totheir knees and <I>prayed aboutit,</I> seeking some kind <I>of feeling</I> to help them know Didthey trust in their feelings, and believe on that basis Certainlynot. Listen to what the Bible says:</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">"These were more noble minded than those in   Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of   mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were   so." (Acts 17:11) </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Note what these Bereans did. They "<I>searched the Scriptures daily."</I>Rather than looking to their feelings, they looked to the Scriptures,and compared the message preached by Paul and Silas with what was inthe Holy Writings. By doing this, they discovered that the Gospel wastrue, and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. They did just as Paulexhorted the Thessalonians in his first letter, chapter 5, verse 21,"<I>Prove all things, hold fast that which isgood." </I>The Bereans proved the message ofPaul and Silas by comparing it with the Scriptures. Note well, ElderHahn, that <I>the Holy Ghost will never give atestimony that is in conflict with that which He has inspired to bewritten in the Scriptures.</I> The Holy Ghostis a consistent being, is He not? Is He not called the "Spirit ofTruth" in John 16? Yes, He is. Then, if anyone claims that they havereceived a testimony from the Holy Ghost that such-and-such is true,and that belief is contradictory to that which we find in Scripture,then we can be sure of this one thing: <B>thespirit that testified to that individual is not the Spirit of God! </B>For example, the Holy Ghost will nottestify to one person that "there is only one God" and to another,"there are many Gods." That would involve a contradiction, aninconsistency, on the part of the very Spirit of Truth. </font></P><P><font face="Verdana">This is important, Elder, because I believe thatthe teachings of Joseph Smith are in direct contradiction to theinspired writings of the Bible. If we say that the Holy Ghostinspired the teachings of the Bible, and Joseph Smith contradictedthose writings, then the Holy Ghost would never give anyone,including you, a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.Before I close, allow me to answer what has, in my experience, been avery common objection to what I have just said. James wrote, </font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of   God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it   shall be given him." James l:5) </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Many Latter-day Saints feel that this passageteaches them to pray about what is true, and what is not true. Theybelieve that it gives them warrant to trust in certain feelings thathave been theirs, certain experiences that they have had. Yet, isthis really what James said? Is wisdom the same as knowledge of rightand wrong You might note first, Elder Hahn, that the verse, as it iswritten in the original language of Greek, assumes that it is truethat men lack wisdom. It could even be translated, "Since a man lackswisdom, let him ask of God...." We all lack wisdom, do we not? But,is wisdom the same as knowledge of what is true and false Notnecessarily. First, wisdom and knowledge are two different terms inthe Greek language in which this book was written. One must haveknowledge to use wisdom; wisdom is the use of knowledge. They arerelated, but they are not the same thing. This passage from Jamesdoes <I>not,</I> then,teach us to trust in our feelings over what the Bible teaches. TheBible gives us true and clear <B>knowledge</B> of what is true aboutGod and salvation. If we are wise, we will accept that truth, andwill not pray to God and ask Him to "repeat" what He has alreadysaid. </font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Elder Hahn, I do not presume to know the exactnature of your "testimony" nor the depth of the feelings that comewith it. I know the feelings that are mine, the testimony of theSpirit that I have. But, as I've said, my feelings, no matter howspecial they are to me, do not make the message that I proclaim rightand true. Just so, your feelings, no matter how much they mean toyou, cannot be allowed to stand in the way of your examination ofGod's Word and your own beliefs. We must not fall into the trap ofmolding the Word of God to our feelings; our feelings must be moldedby the Word of God. </FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">In light of this, Elder, I hope you will join with me in examining what the Bible says about who God is, how He has revealed Himself, and how He has provided for salvation in Jesus Christ. Shall we begin by looking at the truth about God I look forward to hearing from you. </FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Sincerely, James White</FONT></P><P><HR SIZE="10"><font face="Verdana"><h1><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#AF0000">Letter 2 -- But It </FONT><B><FONTSIZE="5" COLOR="#AF0000">Is</FONT></B><FONT SIZE="5"COLOR="#AF0000"> Translated Correctly!</FONT></font></h1></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Friday, June 21st</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Dear Elder Hahn,</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Thank you for your letter of May 26th. Iappreciate the swift response, as well as the kind attitude withwhich you wrote.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">I realized in writing to you originally andsuggesting that we begin with a discussion of the Bible's teachingabout God that we might have to hold off long enough to deal with thesubject of the Bible. I have met a few Mormons with whom such adiversion was not necessary, but, that is the exception rather thanthe rule. The vast majority of LDS, in my experience, harbor somedoubts concerning the accuracy of the Bible, some going so far as toreject the Bible, for all intents and purposes, as a book that can betrusted. Indeed, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt once wrote:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">"What shall we say then, concerning the   Bible's being a sufficient guide Can we rely upon it in its   present known corrupted state, as being a faithful record of God's   word We all know that but a few of the inspired writings have   descended to our times, which few quote the names of some twenty   other books which are lost,. ..What few have comedown to our day,   have been mutilated, changed, and corrupted, in such a shameful   manner that not two manuscripts agree. Verses and even whole   chapters have been added by unknown persons; and even we do not   know the authors of some whole books; and we are not certain that   all those which we do know, were wrote by inspiration. Add all   this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who,   in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its   present form to he a perfect guide Who knows that even one verse   of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same   sense now that it did in the original...There can be no certainty   as to the contents of the inspired writings until God shall   inspire some one to rewrite all those books over again....No   reflecting man can deny the necessity of such a new revelation"   (<I>Orson Pratt's Works,</I> "The Bible Alone an Insufficient Guide," pp.   44-47. </font>      <P><font face="Verdana">I have met a number of Mormons who were that   "radical" in their view. But, I've also met others who would   disagree with Orson Pratt, such even as Brigham Young, who, in   response to comments such as those above by Pratt, said, why I   make this particular remark is because this congregation heard   brother O. Pratt scan the validity of the Bible, and I thought by   the time he got through, that you would scarcely think a Bible   worth picking up and carrying home, should you find one in the   streets...The Bible is good enough as it is, to point out the way   we should walk, and to teach us how to come to the Lord of whom we   can receive for ourselves (Brigham Young, 10/8/1855, <I>Journal of Discourses,</I> 3:116).</font></P></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">So, as you can see, there are a lot of differentattitudes toward the Bible amongst Latter-day Saints. Your objectionsto the accuracy of the Bible, Elder Hahn, are "common" in myexperience, and I will do my best to answer them.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">In my previous letter I noted a few passages fromthe Bible, such as Isaiah 40:8 and Proverbs 30:5-6. It seems obviousto me, Elder Hahn, that the Lord Jesus believed that the Scriptureswere truly and really "the words of God," and this is perfectly inline with the views expressed in those Scriptures I just cited. Infact, in disputing with the Jews, Jesus said, "<I>have you not read what God spoke to you saying, `I am theGod of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God ofJacob"'</I> (Matthew 22:31-32). Here the LordJesus refers to the written words of Scripture as the <I>very words of God Himself</I> Youwill not find the Lord Jesus ever "correcting" the Old TestamentScriptures, but each time He quotes the Old Testament writings, Heaccepts what they say without question, and expects all others tohave the same attitude. A high view of the Bible is surely Jesus'belief. Do you believe that what you find in the Bible is actuallyGod's words, Elder Hahn Or have you been taught that the Bible is notfully trustworthy, not fully accurate</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">There are two Scriptures that clearly present mybelief in the nature of the Bible as God's Word. The first is 2Timothy 3:1-17, the second is 2 Peter 1:20-21. Let me briefly reviewthese passages with you.</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Paul wrote to Timothy, "<I>All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for   doctrine, for reproof for instruction, for training in   righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete,   fully equipped for every good work." </I>Yes, I know, that is not the King James translation --   it is my own translation of the Greek in which Paul wrote to   Timothy in the first place. I will discuss the topic of   "translation" a little later, if I might ask your indulgence till   then. </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Paul describes the Scriptures as "God-breathed."The term itself that is commonly translated as "inspired" literallymeans that the Scriptures find their origin, their source, in GodHimself. They are like the breath of God Himself, coming forth fromHis mouth. Note, too, that the Bible is not here speaking of <B>how</B> the writerswere led by God to write what they did, but that <B>what they wrote</B> was "inspired"or "God-breathed." God used men to write His Word, but He did so insuch a way as to insure that what was written was word-for-word whatHe had intended from eternity past. The God of the Bible is bigenough to use men to write His message, yet at the same time see toit that the resultant revelation is not mixed with error oruntruth.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">The Apostle Peter did address the manner in whichthe holy men chosen by God wrote the Scriptures. In 2 Peter 1:21-22we read, "<I>Knowing this first of all, thatno Scriptural prophecy ever came about by the prophet's own personalinterpretation, for no prophecy ever was borne by the will of man,rather, while being carried along by the Holy Spirit, men spoke fromGod." </I>Again, this is my own personaltranslation of the original Greek. Peter is discussing not theinterpretation of the text, but the origin and surety of the text. Heasserts that the prophecies of Scripture (and he is not speakingsimply of prophecies in the sense of predictions of future events,but the whole proclamation of the truth of God) never came aboutsimply by human impulse or through human thinking. God's revelationhas never found its origin in the will of man. Instead, these menspoke from God <B>while</B> being carried along by the Holy Spirit of God. What theysaid came from God, and as they spoke these things, they were beingcarried along by the Spirit of God. Obviously, then, the Spirit ofGod would not have led these men into error in what they said as theyspoke from God, would He We see, then, that the Apostles, just as theLord Jesus, believed in the inerrancy of the Biblical text -- thatwhat they wrote contains no errors, no untruths.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">We might agree to this point. You might be willingto say "yes, as the Bible was <I>originallywritten</I> it was the perfect and completeWord of God." But, then you'd be quick to add, "Things have changed-- the Bible has been changed, things have been lost. We can nolonger say that the Bible is fully and completely the Word of God."That really seems to be your main objection if I am interpreting yourlast letter correctly. If so, you seem to be in line with a majorityof LDS today. However, you might note that one of your own LDSscholars, James Talmage, was not quite as strident in his criticismof the Bible. Rather, he knew enough of the Bible itself to be muchmore moderate in his words:</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">The Latter-day Saints believe the original   records to be the word of God unto man, and, as far as these   records have been translated correctly, the translators are   regarded as equally authentic. The English Bible professes to be a   translation made through the wisdom of man; In its preparation the   most scholarly men have been enlisted, yet not a version has been   published in which errors are not admitted. However, an impartial   investigator has cause to wonder more at the paucity of errors   than that mistakes are to he found at all (<I>Articles of Faith,</I> by James   Talmage, pp. 236-237) </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">He also noted,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">The New Testament must he accepted for what it   claims to he; and though, perhaps, many precious parts have been   suppressed or lost, while some corruptions of the texts may have   crept in, and errors have been inadvertently introduced through   the incapacity of translators, the volume as a whole must be   admitted as authentic and credible, and as an essential part of   the Holy Scriptures (<I>Articles of   Faith,</I> p. 248). </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">It is interesting that Talmage would say "perhapsmany precious parts have been...lost" and "some corruptions of thetexts may have crept in" in light of the clear teachings of many ofthe early LDS teachers (such as Orson Pratt) as well as the directstatements of the Book of Mormon about the Bible:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Neither will the Lord God suffer that the   Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness   [the book of Mormon originally read "awful state of woundedness"],   which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most   precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back   by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen (1 Nephi   13:32). </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">Of course, this passage only says that these"plain and precious truths" are withheld by the "abominable church,"and not that they have been removed from the Bible, but many, manyLDS believe this to be the case. 1 Nephi 14:10 says,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">And he said unto me: Behold there are save two   churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the   other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not   to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church,   which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all   the earth. </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">It is clear that the <I>allchurches other than the LDS Church</I> must beactively "keeping back" many "plain and precious truths" of theBible. How this is done is not stated by the Book of Mormon; but,popular belief amongst Latter-day Saints says that the CatholicChurch removed whole sections of the Bible during the Middle Ages.You stated in your letter,</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">But, you must know that the Bible has been   translated over and over and over again. We can't know exactly   what the Bible said originally, because it has been translated so   often. As the Eighth Article of Faith says, "We believe the Bible   to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we   also believe the book of Mormon to be the word of God." </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">You are about the four hundredth Mormon missionarywho has said this to me, I can assure you of that! But, yourassertion is simply not correct. Let me explain.</FONT></P><P><B><FONT face="Verdana">TRANSMISSION VERSUS TRANSLATION</FONT></B></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">We need to define some terms, Elder Hahn, so thatwe can properly understand how we received the Bible as it is today.You made the statement that the Bible has been "translated over andover and over again." In one sense, that is true, but I doubt you arething of translation in the proper sense. Most Mormons, when they saythis, mean that the Bible was translated from one language intoanother, and then from that language into another, and then intoanother, and so on. Often the example is used of the child's gamewhere one person whispers a phrase to one person, and then on to thenext, around the circle, and each time the phrase is changed a goodbit by the time it gets to the end of the process. But, this is notwhat happened with the Bible.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">When we speak of the history of the Bible, and howit came to us, we are speaking of the transmission of the text overtime. For the first fifteen hundred years of the "Christian era," thetext of the Bible was transmitted by hand copying, from onemanuscript to another. We have today over 25,000 hand-writtenmanuscripts of the New Testament alone, and over 5,000 of these arewritten in the original language of the New Testament, Greek. Most ofthe time, when Mormons speak of the Bible being "mistranslated" interms of the 6th Article of Faith, they are not referring to itsactual translation, but rather they are alleging that there have beenerrors made in the transmission of the text. Normally it is believedthat passages, and even whole books, have been "lost" in the processof transmission, not in translation.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana"><B>Translation</B> is theprocess whereby one renders a passage in one language into the wordsof another language. For example, above I gave you my own translationof both 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. That is, I had beforeme a text of the New Testament written in Greek, and I translatedthose passages from Greek into English, and put that translation downon paper for your benefit. Each of the various "versions" of theBible that are available today -- the King James Version, the NewAmerican Standard Bible, the New International Version -- each issimply a different translation of the one Bible, which was written inHebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There is only one Bible, while there aremany translations of that Bible into the many languages of mankind,including our own English versions. I enjoy reading the Bible inGreek and Hebrew, as well as in German and French. I am not readingthree different Bibles when I read in these different languages -- Iam reading three different translations of the <B>one Bible,</B> originally written inGreek and Hebrew.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">I hope the difference between <B>transmission</B> and <B>translation</B> is now clear to you.When we speak of supposed errors in rendering the original Hebrew orGreek texts, we are speaking of translation. When we speak of theallegation that passages of the Bible, even entire books, have been"removed," or that the text of the Bible has been corrupted overtime, we are speaking of transmission. In light of these definitions,allow me to address your statements.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">You said that the Bible had been "translated overand over again." Yes, that is true in the sense that each time I openmy Greek New Testament, I am "translating" it over again. But, Idon't believe you meant it in that way. Rather, you seem to be sayingthat the Bible has gone through a process where it has beentranslated from one language into another, sort of like this: </font></P><P><CENTER><font face="Verdana"><B><FONT COLOR="#0000AF">Hebrew</FONT></B> to <B><FONTCOLOR="#0000AF">Greek</FONT></B> to <B><FONT COLOR="#0000AF">Latin</FONT></B> to <B><FONT COLOR="#0000AF">French</FONT></B> to <B><FONTCOLOR="#0000AF">German</FONT></B> to <B><FONT COLOR="#0000AF">Spanish</FONT></B> to <B><FONT COLOR="#0000AF">English</FONT></B> </font></CENTER></P><P><font face="Verdana">Obviously, if that is how it happened, you wouldbe right in saying that by the time it got to English, a great dealof what it originally said would have been lost in translation. But,that is not how it happened. Each of the English versions is based <I>directly upon the originallanguages,</I> and there is but one stepbetween the original Hebrew and Greek texts to the Englishtranslation thereof. So, as you can see, we can know what the Bibleoriginally said with reference to its translation from the originallanguages into English.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">So, in a sense, I can say that I agree that theBible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, in thesense that a purposeful and malicious attempt to mistranslate theBible would not produce a result that I would feel obliged to call"the word of God." For example, the Watchtower Bible and TractSociety (Jehovah's Witnesses) produces what they call <B>The New World Translation.</B> This,I believe, is not truly "the word of God" for it purposefullymistranslates a number of passages that are relevant to the person ofJesus Christ, in an attempt to "smuggle" the doctrines of Jehovah'sWitnesses into the text of the Bible. I feel no obligation to followthis mistranslation as if it were the Word of God. In the same way,Elder Hahn, I do not follow Joseph Smith's "translation" of theBible, for it has no basis in the manuscripts of the Bible that wehave, and, in the case of his tremendous addition to the 50th chapterof Genesis, he was obviously attempting to "insert" a prophecy abouthimself in something that was written a full 3,000 yearsearlier.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">I have often had LDS people say, when confrontedwith a passage that contradicted their own beliefs, "well, that mustbe mistranslated." I ask, "do you know what the correct translationis, then" "No," they reply. "Have you examined this passage in theoriginal Hebrew or Greek" "No, I have not," they say. "Then how doyou know it is mistranslated" I ask. "Because it contradicts what theLDS Church teaches," they reply. Only a handful of times have I metanyone who had done even a small amount of study on a passage thatthey alleged to be "mistranslated." If you ask me, Elder Hahn, JamesTalmage knew that the Bible was translated accurately in the Englishversions, and he also knew that the charges of gross corruption ofthe Biblical text, made so often by Latter-day Saints, have no basisin fact. That is why he was so reticent in his statements which Icited above.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">So the next question, obviously, is this: has thetext of the Bible been changed and corrupted, as many allege? Or dowe know what the original authors of the Scriptures wrote? We canspeak all we wish of being able to translate the texts of the Bibleaccurately (and we can do so), but if the text has not beentransmitted correctly over time, what does it matter</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">Recently, I heard a Christian talk host and aMormon speaking about the Bible on a nationwide talk program. TheMormon said, "Well, the Bible has been translated many times, and weno longer know what it originally said because it has been changed."Sadly, the talk-show host responded not with accurate informationabout the Biblical text, but rather said, "Well, the Book of Mormonhas been changed, too!" While he is correct that the Book of Mormonhas undergone a good deal of specific, purposeful editing (theDoctrine and Covenants even more so!), that is not the point. Twowrongs don't make a right. The host should have responded by refutingthe charge of "corruption" that was lodged against the Bible. </font></P><P><font face="Verdana">It is impossible, of course, for me to attempt afull discussion of the history of the text of the Bible in a letter.Besides, many fine scholars have put pen to paper in the descriptionof this very thing. Two fine, more basic works come to mind that Iwould like to recommend to you. F.F. Bruce's <I>The New Testament Documents: Are TheyReliable</I> and J. Harold Greenlee's <I>Scribes, Scrolls andScripture.</I> Both should be readilyavailable to you. But I shall not simply direct you to others withoutgiving you a basic reply to your contentions.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">While it may be true that none of the 5,000 Greekmanuscripts (as an example) of the New Testament read <B>exactly</B> like another, this initself is not a very meaningful fact. That any hand-written documentof the length of even one of the Gospels should read exactly likeanother would be quite remarkable, for the probability of misspellingeven one word, or skipping one "and" in a whole book is quite high.But, despite this, it is amazing that at least 75% of the text of theNew Testament is without textual variation; that is, 3 out of 4 wordsin the New Testament are to be found without variation in all themanuscripts we have. 95% of the remaining 25% of the text is easilydetermined by the process of textual criticism. Textual criticism isthe process whereby, knowing the propensities of scribes in makingerrors and utilizing the incredibly rich amount of evidence availableto us (the New Testament, for example, has <B>far more</B> manuscript evidenceavailable for study than any other document of antiquity), the mostlikely original reading is determined from the possibilitiespresented by the manuscripts. That leaves but a little less than 11/2 percent of the entire text -- less than two out of every onehundred words -- where serious doubt as to the exact wording of theoriginal exists. <B>But note this well, Elderone thing that is not in doubt is that we do have the originalreadings available to us in the possibilities given to us by themanuscript tradition.</B> What I mean is this:every reading that has entered into the manuscripts of the NewTestament has remained there. While some might think that this isbad, it is not, for what it also means is that since no readings"drop out" of the text, the original reading is still there as well!Our task is not, then, impossible, for the original readings arestill there -- we just need to recognize which of two or threepossibilities it is.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">This "tenacity" of the New Testament text (thatis, the fact that readings "stick around" even if they look to beobviously in error) also helps us to see why another favorite LDSaccusation against the Scriptures is wrong. Many believe that largesections of the Bible have been "removed" or have been "lost" overtime. Seemingly, given what the Book of Mormon says as cited above,this "editing" was done by the Roman Catholic Church, which, it isalleged, removed that which was not in harmony with its own beliefs.Aside from the fact that there remains much in Scripture that is notin harmony with Roman Catholic teaching (which, I guess, would meanthey did not do a very good job in their "editing"), what is obviousis the fact that such a task of "editing" would have been simply <B>impossible to do!</B> Why You have thousands of copies of the Scriptures, spreadout all across the Roman Empire, from Spain to Egypt. How can any oneman, or any one organization, gather up all these copies, includingmany buried under the sands in Egypt or in a clay pot in Palestine,change all of them, and then replace all of them Some may wish thatGod had not allowed for all these copies of the manuscripts to existwith their minor variations, but, in reality, we can see that thiswas a wonderful way of <B>protecting thetext!</B> Any change in one manuscript showsup like a sore thumb when compared with the others! For example, ifone person took a manuscript and attempted to "rewrite it" so as toteach a completely new doctrine, this one manuscript would be <B>vastly different</B>than those manuscripts found a thousand miles away. The change wouldbe obvious to all.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">So I hope you can see, Elder Hahn, that many ofthe things you have been taught regarding the Bible are, actually, <I>myths</I> ratherthan reality. When we read the New Testament, we can know that Paulwrote "For by grace you have been saved through faith..." (Ephesians2:8); we can know what was originally written and can build our faithupon the sure revelation of God in Scripture.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">I have waxed long, but I feel it is important.Please feel free to ask further questions about the Bible, as it willbe vitally important to any discussions we might have later on. Ihope you are feeling well, and I hope to hear from you againsoon.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Sincerely, </FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">James White</FONT></P><P><HR SIZE="10"><h1><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#AF0000" face="Verdana">Letter 3 -- Errors in God'sWord?</FONT></h1></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Friday, June 8th</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Dear Elder Hahn,</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">Thank you for your prompt reply. I have to note inpassing that your letter did not directly respond to much that I saidbefore in regard to the Bible's claims concerning itself. That is notreally unusual, but I feel that it should be pointed out to you thatproviding a list of supposed "contradictions" is not the same asdealing with the direct claims of Scripture. Your approach, instead,is to deny the teachings of the Bible by providing examples ofalleged <B>errors</B>that would, by their presence, <B>disprove</B> the words of Scripture.I hope you will consider further the Bible's own teachings aboutitself.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">The list of "contradictions" you have provided tome is a common one -- at times I think that this list, or one verysimilar to it, is a part of the "missionary training packet" that ispassed out to every new missionary before being sent out into thefield. I say that because of the fact that these same passages keepcoming up over and over again as I speak with representatives of theLDS Church. In fact, the very first time anyone at all attempted toprove to me that the Bible was contradictory to itself was when I metwith my first pair of Mormon missionaries -- and, interestinglyenough, the passage they threw at me was the first one you listed inyour letter.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">Before I address these particular passages, Iwould like to point something out to you, Elder Hahn. Have you everthought about the fact that you have to join hands with atheists andother enemies of the Christian faith in your attacks upon the Bible Ihave spoken with, and corresponded with, many, many atheists over thepast few years, and the supposed "contradictions" they speak aboutare the same as those you have provided to me. Surely your reasonsare a little different than theirs, but, in the final analysis, may Isuggest to you that you <B>have</B> to attack the validity andaccuracy of the Bible in <B>order tofind</B> a way <B>toestablish your "other" scriptures.</B> If theBible is what it claims, the inspired, sufficient revelation of God,then there is no <B>need</B> for any other writings, including yours. Not only this,but I believe the attacks made upon the accuracy of the Bible by theLDS Church are necessary so that the <B>clearand evident contradictions between the teaching of the Bible and LDStheology can be dismissed with as little difficulty aspossible.</B> Hopefully, we shall be able toget into those particular Biblical teachings in a short time. </font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Your list of "contradictions" in the Bible isactually very well suited for my purposes, in that the passages youcite provide me with good examples of various kinds of errors made bythose who attack the accuracy of God's Word. (I'm sorry if thatdescription offends you, but, you must admit it is an accuraterepresentation.) Let's look at the passages you listed:</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Acts 9:7 / Acts 22:9, and the allegeddiscrepancies in the story of Paul's meeting Jesus Christ on the roadto Damascus. This seems to be the "classic example" of acontradiction for many LDS, and it provides me with a good example ofhow people fail to "do their homework" when reading the Bible. Weshall spend most of our time here.</FONT></P><UL>   <LI><font face="Verdana">Matthew 27:9-10 / Zechariah 11:12-13, and   Matthew's citation of the prophecy of Zechariah as being the   prophecy of Jeremiah. </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">Matthew 27:45 / Mark 15:25 / Luke 23:44 / John   19:14, and the time of the Lord's death on the cross. Was He   crucified at the "third hour" and died in the "ninth hour" as   Matthew, Mark and Luke indicate, or is John right in giving a   different time </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">Matthew 4:18-20 / John 1:40-42, and whether   Andrew went and got Peter, or did Jesus just call them from their   nets by the seashore. </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">Mark 6:8 / Luke 9:3, and the question, were   the disciples to take a staff on their journey or not </font></UL><P><font face="Verdana">I am sure that you could multiply your examples,as I surely could. I have reams of lists of supposed contradictionsin the Bible. But those you have provided to me will function well tohelp us see the various kinds of allegations that are made againstthe Bible. Let's start with the first, and seemingly most popular ofthem all, Acts 9:7 and 22:9. In these two passages the story ofPaul's encounter with the risen Lord Jesus Christ is given, first byLuke, then in Paul's own words as he stands before the mob inJerusalem. In the King James Version of the Bible we read, </font></P><BLOCKQUOTE><P><font face="Verdana">Acts 9:7 -- And the men who journeyedwith him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. </font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Acts 22:9 -- And they that were with me saw indeedthe light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him whothat spoke to me.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE><P><font face="Verdana">The alleged contradiction is, of course, easy tosee. Acts 9:7 says the men <B>heard thevoice</B> and Acts 22:9 says they <B>did not hear</B> thevoice. Clearly the question is, <B>did the menhear the voice or not?</B> To answer thatquestion, we must, obviously, deal with the text as written by Lukein its original languages. This is an excellent example of asituation where the original words must be allowed to be heard in theargument, for we could be charging Luke with a simple mistake that hedid not make. These passages will also serve well, Elder Hahn, todemonstrate how "doing one's homework" can save one from makingerrors in attacking the Bible. In providing the following informationto you, I am not attempting simply to "bury" you under a mountain ofcitations and quotes; I am, however, attempting to show you howimportant in-depth Bible study is. A very precious few are those whohave objected to my belief in the inerrancy of the Bible who havedemonstrated their position on the basis of real, solidresearch.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">We need to notice that some modern versionstranslate the passage differently. For example, the New InternationalVersion reads as follows:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">9:7 -- The men traveling with Saul stood there   speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. </font>      <P><font face="Verdana">22:9 -- My companions saw the light, but they   did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. </font>   </P></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Note that in the NIV the contradiction no longerexists; in the first passage the men hear a sound; in the second theydo not understand the voice of the one speaking to Saul. Criticswould assert that the NIV has translated in accordance withinterpretation and convenience rather thin according to language andusage. But is this so? Lets examine these passages and see. </font></P><P><font face="Verdana">First, before going into the text itself, we mustaddress the issue of "what is a contradiction." The law ofcontradiction, stated briefly, would be that you cannot have <B>A</B> and <B>non-A</B>simultaneously. You cannot have a chair in a room and outside theroom at the same time. That would be a contradiction. But, is thiswhat we have in this case in Acts?</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">The answer can only be <B>no,</B> we do not have acontradiction here. First, let's transliterate the passages from theoriginal language of Greek so that their differences can beseen:</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">9:7 - akouontes men tes phones; 22:9 - ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos   moi </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">It would be good to list the differences betweenthe passages:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">1. In 9:7 <B>akouo</B> is found as a   nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is a plural aorist   verb. </font>      <DD><font face="Verdana">2. In 9:7 <B>phone</B> is a singular genitive   noun; in 22:9 it is a singular accusative noun. </font>      <DD><font face="Verdana">3. In 9:7 <B>akouo</B> precedes its object; in   22:9 it follows its object. </font>      <DD><font face="Verdana">4. In 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9   it is modified by "of the one speaking to me." </font>      <DD><font face="Verdana">5. In 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in Greek;   in 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Hebrew (or Aramaic). </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">Clearly the critic is placed in an impossibleposition of forcing the argument here, for the differences betweenthe two passages are quite significant. Hence the argument mustproceed on the grounds of contradictory meanings only, for thegrammar of the two passages will not support a clear "A vs. non-A"proposition.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">We then must answer the question, are thedifferences between these passages significant enough to warrant theNIV's translation? Do we have a solid basis upon which to assert thatwhat Paul meant was that the men heard a sound but did not understandwhat the voice was saying? I believe we do, and I am not alone onthis. Following are some of the comments made by some eminent Greekscholars about these passages:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Thus in Acts 9:7, "hearing the voice," the   noun "voice" is in the partitive genitive case I i.e., hearing   (something) off, whereas in 22:9, "they heard not the voice," the   construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any   contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the   latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they   did not hear). "The former denotes the sensational perception, the   latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived." (Cremer). In   John 5:25,28, the genitive case is used, indicating a "sensational   perception" that the Lord's voice is sounding; in 3:8, of hearing   the wind, the accusative is used, stressing "the thing perceived."   (<B>Expository Dictionary of New Testament   Words</B> by W.E. Vine, pages   204-205). </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Instead of this being a flat contradiction of whatLuke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as withthe "light" and "no one") a distinction between the "sound"(originalserseofphoneasinJohfl3:8) and the separate words spoken. Itso happens that <B>akouo</B> is used either with the accusative (extent of the hearing)or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such adistinction here coincides with the two senses of <B>phone.</B> They heard the sound(9:7), but did not under- stand the words (22:9). However, thisdistinction in case with <B>akouo, phonenekousaphonen</B> about Saul in Acts 9:4. asides inActs 22:7 Paul uses <B>ekousa phonen</B> about himself, but <B>ekousa phonen</B> about himself in26:14, interchangeably. (<B>Word Pictures inthe New Testament</B> by Dr. A.T. Robertson,volume III, pages 117-118).</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">The fact that the maintenance of an old and   well-known distinction between the acc. and the gen. with <B>akouo</B> saves   the author of Acts 9 and 22 from a patent self-contradiction,   should by itself be enough to make us recognize it for Luke, and   for other writers until it is proved wrong. (<B>A Grammar of New Testament Greek</B> by James Hope Moulton, vol. I., page 66. Robertson   quotes this approvingly in <B>A Grammar of   the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical   Research</B> on pages448-449). </font>      <P><font face="Verdana">The partitive gen. occurs in NT with verbs of   perception, especially with a personal object. For <B>akouo,</B> the classical rule   is that the person whose words are heard is in the gen. . . . but   the thing (or person) about which one hears is in the accus., and <B>akouo</B> c.   accus. may mean to understand. We have to ask whether the class.   distinction between gen. and accus. has significance for exegesis   in NT. There may he something in the difference between the gen.   in Acts 9 (the men with Paul heard the sound and the accus. in Acts   22 (they did not understand the voice). (<B>A Grammar of New Testament Greek</B> vol. III by Nigel Turner, pg. 233).</font></P></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Basically, these writers are referring to thepossibility that the difference in the case of the term <B>akouo</B> would inthis instance (9:7, 22:9) point to a difference in <B>meaning.</B> However, as Dr. A. T.Robertson said above, this distinction cannot be written in stone.Why then do we feel that we are correct in asserting this differenceas the "answer" to this supposed contradiction. <B>Context,</B> Elder Hahn, <B>context.</B> Thoughnone of the above authors went deeply into the subject, anexamination of the context of the passages in question here makes itvery <B>clear</B> thatLuke meant a difference to be understood in what he waswriting.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">The key element in this investigation is pointedout by R.J. Knowling (<B>Expositor's GreekTestament</B> vol. 2 ed. by W. RobertsonNicoll, pages 231-233) and by John Aberly (<B>New Testament Commentary</B> editedby H. C. Alleman, page 414). In Acts 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowdin Jerusalem. According to Acts 21:40 Paul addressed the crowd inHebrew (NIV says Aramaic -- exactly which dialect it was is not veryrelevant). He mentions to his Hebrew listeners that when Jesus calledhim, he called him in their own language -- Hebrew. How do we knowthis In both Acts 9:4 and in Acts 22:7 Saul is not spelled in itsnormal form, but is spelled in its Hebrew (or Aramaic) form <B>Saoul.</B> What doesthis tell us? It tells us that the "voice" spoke in Hebrew.Therefore, Acts 22:9 would be referring to the fact that the men whoaccompanied Paul did not understand what was said for they could notunderstand Hebrew! The text supports this very strongly, for Paulmodifies his saying "they did not hear (understand) the voice" byadding the vital phrase, "of the one speaking to me (<B>tou lalountos moi</B>)." Theemphasis is on the speaking of the voice, which would indicatecomprehension and understanding. Now, given the above scholars'quotations, and the context of the passages, can anyone seriouslydeny that there is a perfectly plausible explanation for thissupposed contradiction? I think not.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Finally, it must be stated that part and parcel ofdealing with almost any ancient or even modern writing is the basicidea that the author gets the benefit of the doubt. It is highlyunlikely that a writer will contradict himself within short spans oftime or space. Luke was a careful historian, and it is sheerspeculation that he would be so forgetful as to forget what he wrotein Acts 9 by the time he wrote Acts 22. Some critics of the Bibleseem to forget the old axiom "innocent until proven guilty." Theperson who will not allow for the harmonization of the text (as wedid above) is in effect claiming omniscience of all the factssurrounding an event that took place nearly two millennia ago. Mostcareful scholars do not make such claims. The above presentedexplanation is perfectly reasonable, it coincides with the knownfacts, and does not engage in unwarranted "special pleading." If youwish to continue to claim that Acts 9:7 contradicts Acts 22:9, ElderHahn, there is little I or anyone else can do about that. But realizethat (1) your position cannot be proven; (2) you are operating onunproven assumptions (Luke was not intelligent enough to notice acontradiction in his own writing); and (3) there is a perfectlylogical explanation, based on the original languages andcontexts.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">I hope that you do not mind, Elder, that I took agood bit of time and space to answer the first of your allegedcontradictions. I do hope that if you desire to do so, you will lookinto the sources I cited and discover the truth for yourself. I wantyou to see, however, that attacking the accuracy of the Bible <B>on the basis of our own misunderstanding ofa translated text </B>(i.e., our understandingof the English translation) is not a wise, nor correct, procedure.The King James Version's translation is not a mistranslation in andof itself; if we wish to ask "what does it mean to 'hear' a voice"then we need to ask that question of the <B>original text </B>as well as thetranslated one.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">At this point, in the past, I have had many LDSsay, "hey, you are getting real complicated here, and I think you arejust trying to hide something. You don't need to know all this Greekstuff -- the Apostles were simple men who were unlearned anduntrained." While the Apostles (with the notable exception of Paul)may have been unlearned and untrained, that has little if anything todo with the current topic, that being supposed errors in the Bible.Unlearned and untaught men can receive great truth from God. But theyare also unlikely candidates to be <B>attacking</B> the veracity andaccuracy of God's revelation as well. You won't find the Apostlesdoing that! So, when others, such as yourself, Elder Hahn, comeagainst the Scriptures and accuse them of error, that is fardifferent than an untrained, unlearned, humble man receiving graceand knowledge from God. You must demonstrate that you have trulyexamined the issues, and done your homework, before makingallegations such as these. The issues we must deal with -- Greek,Hebrew, translation, transmission, history, grammar -- all of these,are "scholarly" issues, requiring study and work.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Let's move on to your other "contradictions." Thenext on your list was Matthew 27:9-10 in comparison with Zechariah11:12-13. Matthew writes, into one statement about the Lord Jesus.Since Jeremiah is the "major" prophet, and Zechariah his "junior,"then the major prophet's name is used. A similar thing happens inMark 1:2-3, where prophecies from both Isaiah and Malachi are puttogether in one quotation. So, as we can see, there are at least twoplausible explanations as to why Matthew would cite this passage theway that he did, and not be in "error" for having done so. Surely itcan be said that it is not possible to prove that Matthew was inerror and made such an obvious "mistake" for no purpose. Is there anyparticular reason why the Biblical writers should be given lesscredit for their knowledge of the Scriptures than a modern writer Whyshould we believe Matthew to be so ignorant of the Old Testament Theidea that there was a purpose to his words is logical andrational.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Let's look next at another issue that will againillustrate the accuracy of the Bible over against the charges madeagainst it -- that being your question concerning the time of Jesus'crucifixion and death as given to us by Matthew, Mark, and Luke,seemingly in opposition to John. Mark 15:25 says, "And it was thethird hour, and they crucified him." Then, in Mark 15:33-34, weread,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">And when the sixth hour was come, there was   darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the   ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi,   la'ma sabach' thani?" which is, being interpreted, My God, my God,   why hast thou forsaken me? </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">This same information is given by Matthew 27:45and Luke 23:44. All three of the "Synoptic" gospels (Matthew, Mark,and Luke) agree that Jesus was (1) crucified at the "third hour" and(2) that darkness was over the land from the sixth to the ninth hour,at which time the Lord Jesus gave up His spirit.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">But, as you pointed out, John says in John 19:14,"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixthhour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!" Here Jesus isstill before Pilate in the "sixth hour" while the Synoptic gospelsare unanimous in saying that Jesus was on the cross at the sixthhour, at which time darkness came over the land. Is this not a clearerror?</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">During the days of Christ there were two differentsystems of keeping time. The Jewish system began at sunrise and wentto sunset. For them, the day would begin about 6 A.M., and the "sixthhour" would be high noon, the ninth hour about 3 P.M. The Romans,however, did not reckon time in this way. Rather, they followed asystem more like our own, where the times started at midnight and atnoon. For them the "sixth hour" would be 6 A.M. in the morning or 6P.M. in the evening, depending on whether you are speaking of daytimeor nighttime.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">It seems very clear that the Synoptic gospels areusing Jewish time in their recording of the events of thecrucifixion. Therefore, they record that Jesus was crucified at the"third hour" which would be 9 in the morning. Darkness was over theland from the sixth to the ninth hours, corresponding to noon till 3P.M., at which time the Lord Jesus gave up His spirit.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">John, on the other hand, is not using the Jewishreckoning of time. He is not writing to Jews, and, in fact, mostprobably wrote this Gospel after Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70,and therefore would have no reason to use that system oftime-keeping. Tradition states that John lived in Ephesus, whichwould have used the Roman system of time-keeping. When thisdifference is taken into consideration, John is "right on time" withhis figures. He says that Jesus was before Pilate during the "sixthhour," which, in Roman thinking, would be around 6 A.M. This isperfectly in line with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for they say He wascrucified three hours later, at 9 A.M. So, we see again, that thereis no error here -- the only error is made by those who fail to allowthe writers the freedom of expressing themselves differently; here,John using a different time system than was used by the otherwriters.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">The next example you provided, Elder Hahn, I feelshows clearly how <B>unwilling</B> most critics of the Bible are to allow the authors to telltheir story in their own way, without necessarily being in "error" inwhat they say. The <B>assumption oferror</B> on the part of the modern reader isfar too quickly made. You brought up Matthew 4:18-20 which speaks ofJesus calling Peter and Andrew to follow Him. They immediately leavetheir nets and follow Him. Then, you cite John 1:40-42 and the factthat here Andrew, being a disciple of John the Baptist, went andfound his brother Peter and said "we have found the Messiah!" Youasked, "which account is true" I say, <B>bothare!</B> See, you don't have to take one tothe exclusion of the other, as long as you don't make one very <B>big</B> assumption-- that the encounter of Jesus with Peter and Andrew on the beach wasthe <B>first</B> timethey had ever met. What is wrong with allowing for harmony here, andunderstanding it as follows. Andrew is a follower of John theBaptist. He goes and gets his brother Peter, and he meets Jesus. Thena period of time elapses -- whether Peter and Andrew are with Jesusduring the whole of this period of time or not is difficult to say --but at some point Peter and Andrew are back at their business, thatof fishing. Jesus comes along and calls them away <B>permanently</B> from their work,calling them to the life of a full-time disciple, and, later, of anapostle. Dr. A.T. Robertson, in his work, <B>AHarmony of the Gospels,</B> separates theoriginal meeting of Jesus with Andrew and Peter and the eventualcalling of them by the seashore with quite an amount of material (seepages 23-33 of his work).</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">Had it ever caused you to wonder, even a little,why Peter and Andrew would just drop their nets, leave their familiesand businesses, and walk off with a man they had never even metbefore If the incident of Matthew 4:18-20 was the first time they hadever met Jesus, that would indeed be strange. But, taking the <B>whole of Scripture</B> into account, we see that it is in full harmony withitself -- this wasn't the first time they had met. I might add inpassing, Elder Hahn, that you are not alone in not doing your"homework" on this one -- I've heard many a sermon preached about the"incredible faith" of Peter and Andrew who just dropped everythingand followed Him without knowing a thing about Christ. Makes goodpreaching, but lousy theology, and bad Bible study!</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Next you brought up the seeming discrepancybetween Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3. The passages read,</FONT></P><DL>   <font face="Verdana">And [Jesus] commanded them that they should take   nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread,   no money in their purse. (Mark 6:8) </font>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">And he said unto them, Take nothing for your   journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money;   neither have two coats apiece. (Luke 9:3)</FONT></P></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Were they to take a staff (stave) or not It wouldbe nearly impossible to resolve this situation, if these were theonly two passages that mention Jesus' words. But, though I am sure itwas not intentional on your part, Elder Hahn, you neglected tomention the <B>third</B> passage that gives us Jesus' instructions to thedisciples, that being Matthew 10:10:</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in   your purses, nor a scrip [bag] for your journey, neither two   coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of   his meat. </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Here we find an instance, Elder Hahn, where theprovision of <B>three</B> witnesses to the same event shows us how, if we had butone or two, we would not have a full understanding of the realsituation. If we had but Mark and Luke, it would be difficult tounderstand how this is not in error.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">The Lord Jesus is sending his disciples out inministry. Matthew gives the fullest account, and in doing so providesthe obvious explanation as well. Jesus is instructing the disciplesto go out with the <B>barest</B> of necessities, not looking to "provide" (Matthew 10:10)or to "acquire" (the translation given by the New American StandardBible, and which best brings out the meaning of the original term)anything <B>extra</B>for the trip. When the Lord tells the disciples to not take "shoes"do we really think that He means that they are to go barefoot Ofcourse not -- rather, they are not to take <B>an extra pair </B>of shoes along. Inthe same way, if a disciple had a staff, he would not be prohibitedfrom taking one along: but, if he did not, he was not to "acquire"one just for the journey -- he was to go as he was.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">So what we have in Luke and Mark is "part" of whatwe have in Matthew. Luke records the prohibition given against <B>acquiring yet another</B> staff, while Mark communicates the implicit <B>permission </B>totake along the staff that one <B>already</B> had. No actualcontradiction is found to exist, but we are again impressed by thefact that we <B>must allow for harmonizationof the texts.</B> What do I mean by this,Elder Hahn? What if we had only Luke and Mark, without Matthew'sadditional information, and you attacked Luke and Mark, accusingeither the authors of error, or someone later of making errors incopying (though, as I explained in my earlier letter, the originalreading would be found no matter what happened during the period ofcopying) We can see how they are not contradicting each other, butare rather giving <B>complimentaryinformation.</B> In fact, one is referring toa prohibition of acquiring a <B>new</B> staff while the other isreferring to one already <B>owned.</B> They are not eventalking, specifically, about the same thing. Yet, without Matthew'sinformation, if I suggested this resolution of the difficulty, wouldyou not be tempted to say, "well, you are just pleading the case, andnot really dealing with the text" Are there not many other passagesin the Gospels, and throughout the Bible, where we encounter similarsituations? Is it not the wiser course to admit we <B>don't know</B> all of thebackgrounds and contexts, and to <B>give theauthors the benefit of the doubt?</B> It wouldcertainly seem so to me.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">As you can see, Elder, each of the instances youhave provided to me has a logical and rational explanation. As Imentioned, you could quite easily find many, many more alleged errorssuch as those above -- but I hope you now realize that the vastmajority of these allegations fall into the categories we saw above.When (1) the original languages are allowed to have their say, (2)the historical contexts are examined, (3) harmonization betweendifferent accounts of the same event is allowed, (4) the authors arerecognized to be intelligent, cognizant beings who were not given tocontradicting themselves in every other word, the vast majority ofcommonly presented "contradictions" are shown to be based more upon adesire to <B>prove</B>the Bible wrong than they are upon any defect in the Bibleitself.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">I realize that I have gone on quite long enough inthls letter, and I apologize. But, there is one more item from yourletter that I must address, that being your list of "missing books."It was quite an impressive list! Let's look at some of them youmentioned:</FONT></P><UL>   <LI><font face="Verdana">Exodus 24:7 -- " the book of the   covenant" </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">Numbers 21:14 -- "the book of the wars of the   LORD" </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">Joshua 10:13 -- "the book of Jashar" </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">l Kings 11:41 -- "the book of the acts of   Solomon" </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">1 Chronicles 29:29 -- the chronicles of   Samuel, Gad and Nathan </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">2 Chronicles 9:29 -- records of Nathan the   prophet, prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, visions of Iddo the   seer </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">2 Chronicles 33:19 -- records of the   Hozai </font>      <LI><font face="Verdana">Colossians 4:16 -- the letter to the   Laodiceans </font></UL><P><FONT face="Verdana">I know of a few others as well, but your list isfairly representative. Now, you wrote,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Clearly these books have been lost from the   Bible. How can you say the Bible is complete when all these books   are missing Might they not teach things that are important This is   why we need latter-day revelation to <B>restore</B> that which is missing   in the Bible. </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Aside from the fact that the Book of Mormon itselfrefers to records that are not contained in it (like the "propheciesof Zenos" mentioned in 1 Nephi 19:10 and elsewhere), I have to askwhy every person who has made the allegation that the Bible is"missing books" thinks that the Bible cannot mention the existence ofany other writing <B>without making thatwriting a part of the canon of Scripture?</B>Many of the books mentioned above were obviously secular in nature;that is, they were public or royal records. Why do you say thesebooks were supposed to be part of Scripture Why cannot the Bible even <B>mention</B> theexistence of secular writings without making those writings part ofthe Scriptures? If the Bible were being written today, and the Biblewere to mention, for example, a national newspaper, would thatautomatically make the newspaper part of Scripture? For example,let's say that a prophet of God was attacked in an editorial writtenin a particular newspaper. The writer of Scripture mentions this.Does this mean that the newspaper becomes part of the inspired Wordof God . . . if so, for what reason? So, when I Kings 11:41 mentionsthe "book of the acts of Solomon," it would be similar to mentioningthe Congressional Record or something of that kind. But why do youbelieve that these books were ever considered to be Scripture by thepeople of God</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">Some of the books mentioned in the Bible wereclearly of a religious nature, such as the records of Nathan theprophet or the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite. But again, whybelieve that these were ever meant <B>to bepart of the Bible?</B> The same example asused above is relevant here. If the Bible were being written today,and a particular religious leader was mentioned, and, rather thanlisting everything that this particular person did, the writer ofScripture were to say, "now, the rest that this person did is writtenin this book . . .," does that book automatically become inspiredbecause the Scripture writer refers someone to it for furtherinformation, if they desire it? I don't believe so, do you? </font></P><P><font face="Verdana">Finally, you mentioned the "epistle from Laodicea"in Colossians 4:16. Again, I see no reason to call this a "lost book"if God never intended it to be in the Bible in the first place.Surely, if God wishes a book to be in His Word, He can manage to getit there. But, in this particular instance, we probably <B>do have</B> thisletter. Which one, you ask Well, the book of Ephesians seems to havebeen written as a "circular letter" that was intended to be read invarious churches in different places. Many Bible scholars feel thatthe letter we know as Ephesians is actually the same letter referredto in Colossians, and, if it is, then we do <B>have</B> the letter mentionedhere.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Again, I apologize for the length of this letter,and I hope you will continue our conversation. Shall we move on totalk about the God of the Bible? I stand ready.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Sincerely,</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">James White</FONT></P><P><HR SIZE="10"><h1><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#AF0000" face="Verdana">Letter 4 -- The Doctrine of God --Monotheism vs Polytheism</FONT></h1></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Friday, June 15</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Dear Elder Hahn,</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">The August 15, 1844 edition of the <I>Times and Seasons</I> contained theremarks made by the president of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, atthe April conference of the Church the preceding spring. Sincedelivering that sermon, Joseph Smith had been murdered in the jail inCarthage, Illinois.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">The sermon printed in those pages, and which isalso to be found in various other LDS publications such as the <I>Journal of Discourses</I>, Volume 6, pages 1-11, and in Joseph Fielding Smith's <I>Teachings of the Prophet JosephSmith,</I> pages 342-62, has come to beabsolutely <I>foundational</I> to LDS doctrine and thought, for in it Joseph Smith laidout what was to be his final doctrine of God and man before hisdeath. I mentioned to you in our original meeting, Elder Hahn, mybelief that Joseph Smith's doctrines "evolved" over the period oftime between the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830 and hisdeath in 1844. The doctrines set forth in this sermon by Smith, knownas the "King Follett Funeral Discourse" (as it was given at thefuneral of Elder King Follett) are not only not to be found in theBook of Mormon, but are completely contradictory to the teachings ofthe Bible as well. Below I will review some of Smith's comments inthis sermon, for I feel it is vital that we both know exactly what hestated and believed about God. I know you are probably familiar withmost of this material, but I have met many LDS who were not, so Ifeel thoroughness would be advisable at this point.</font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">I have been requested to speak by [King   Follet's] friends and relatives, but inasmuch as there are a great   many in this congregation who live in this city as well as   elsewhere, who have lost friends, I feel disposed to speak on the   subject in general, and offer you my ideas, so far as I have   ability, and so far as I shall be inspired by the Holy Spirit to   dwell on this subject. </FONT>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">My first object is to find out the character of   the only wise and trve God, and what kind of being he is; and if I   am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or   convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals   them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in   silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their   hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the   servants of God again.</FONT></P>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">If I show, verily, that I have the trvth of   God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing   religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while   they pretend to hold the keys of God's kingdom on earth, and was   to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the   whole world with blood.</FONT></P>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">I will prove that the world is wrong, by   showing what God is. I am going to enquire after God; for I want   you all to know him, and to be familiar with him.</FONT></P>      <P><font face="Verdana"><I>God himself was once as we are now, and is   an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the   great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who   holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all   things by his power, was to make himself visible - I say, if you   were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form - like   yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for   Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God,   and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed   with him, as one man talks and communes with another.</I> </font>   </P>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">In order to understand the subject of the dead,   for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends,   it is necessary we should understand the character and being of   God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God   came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God   from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the   veil, so that you may see.</FONT></P>      <P><font face="Verdana"><I>These are incomprehensible ideas to some,   but they are simple.</I> It is the first   principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the <I>Character of God, and to know that we   may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that   he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us   all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and   I will show it from the Bible.</I></font></P>      <P><I><FONT face="Verdana">Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only   wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods   yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all   Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree   to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace   to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the   resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting   burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in   everlasting power.</FONT></I></P>      <P><I><FONT face="Verdana">What is it? To inherit the same power, the   same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the   station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same   as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do Why; I do the   things I saw my Father do when the worlds came rolling into   existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and   trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I   shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon   kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a   higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become   exalted myself.</FONT></I></P></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Yes, I know, Elder Hahn, that the above sermon isnot a part of "Mormon Scripture." However, I believe that it is (l)foundational to the theology of the LDS Church, (2) fully supportedby not only the early prophets and apostles of the Mormon Church butby modern-day leaders as well, and (3) fully in line with theteachings of such passages as D&amp;C 130:22, and all of Section 132.It is <I>not</I> inline with the teachings of the Book of Mormon, mainly because JosephSmith's beliefs <I>evolved</I> so during the period between the writing of the Book ofMormon and his final beliefs in 1844. When Smith wrote the Book ofMormon, he was still <I>monotheistic</I> in his beliefs, andhad not yet developed the concept of multiple gods (yes, I know aboutthe First Vision, but, as we shall see, Smith did <I>not</I> claim to have seen God theFather until well <I>after</I> the writing of the Book of Mormon).</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">The first LDS belief that we can derive from thesecomments by Smith, that of an open and direct <I>polytheism,</I> a belief in multiplegods, was reiterated just a matter of weeks later by Smithhimself:</font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">I have always declared God to be a distinct   personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God   the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a   Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and   three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo   and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and   who can contradict it? . . . </FONT>      <P><font face="Verdana">The head God organized the heavens and the   earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the   heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth.   (<I>Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, </I>pp. 370,372)</font></P></DL><P><font face="Verdana">In fact, Smith went so far as to ridicule thedoctrine of the Trinity, which, if Mosiah 15:1-4 in the Book ofMormon means anything, he once at least <I>attempted</I> to teach bysaying,</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Many men say there is one God; the Father, the   Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange   God anyhow -- three in one, and one in three! It is a curious   organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for   them which thou hast given me. Holy Father, keep through thine own   name those whom thou has given me, that they may be one as we are.   All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It   would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a   wonderfully big God-he would be a giant or a monster.   (<I>Teachings of the Prophet Joseph   Smith,</I> p. 372) </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">While many modern Mormons like to say that theybelieve in "one God," they mean this solely in the sense of one God <I>in purpose,</I> notone God in <I>being</I>as Smith makes clear above. Elder Hahn, there is no more basicelement of a religious teaching than whether it is <I>monotheistic</I> and teaches thatthere is but one God, or if it is <I>polytheistic</I> and teaches thatthere is more than one god, or that there are many gods. Christianityis <I>monotheistic</I>to the core, despite what many of its enemies say. Christians believethat there is only one God who has eternally been God. Over againstthis, listen to what early Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt said, </font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">This explains the mystery. If we should take a   million worlds like this and number their particles, we should   find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter   in those worlds. (<I>Journal   of Discourses,</I> 2:345) </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">The same apostle also said,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the   person of our Father in Heaven was begotten by a still more   ancient Father and so on, from generation to generation, from one   heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are   wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive   worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our minds, how far back   the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the   first father was begotten. (<I>The   Seer,</I> p. 132) </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">Some modern LDS writers seem to blush at theopenness of the early Mormons. They would much rather say that theybelieve there is only one God, but, in reality, what they mean isthat there is one "Godhead" in purpose, made up of three gods. MormonApostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Three separate personages-Father, Son, and   Holy Ghost- comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a   God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a <I>plurality of Gods</I> exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense,   these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is   an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without   number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.   (<I>Mormon Doctrine,</I> pp. 576-77) </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">But, at the same time, and in the same book, hecan say,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana"><I>Monotheism</I> is   the doctrine or belief that there is but one God. If this is   properly interpreted to mean that the Father, the Son, and Holy   Ghost-each of whom is a separate and distinct godly personage-are   one God, meaning one Godhead, then true saints are   monotheists. </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">I think it is very clear that Apostle McConkie isplaying word games with us here, for he clearly believes in amultitude of gods, yet, wishes to be called a monotheist. Such simplywill not work. Christians are monotheists in that they believe thatthere is one God, eternal and unchangeable. There were no gods beforeHim, none will be gods after Him. He is the only God there is. So wesee the first major difference between Mormonism andChristianity-monotheism versus polytheism.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">Next, we note Smith's teaching that God was once aman who lived on another planet: "God himself was once as we are now,and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" MormonProphet Lorenzo Snow, it is said, developed the one-line descriptionof this LDS belief which runs, "As man is, God once was; as God is,man may become." God is an exalted man, who at some point in the pastwas a limited, finite being such as you and I. In fact, early Mormonteachers, following Smith's concepts as found in this sermon, evenwent so far as to directly say that God the Father, (or, you mightspecifically identify him as "Elohim") was in <I>a fallen stat</I>e during his"mortal existence" just as you and I, and that Elohim needed to beredeemed before he could become an exalted being, a "god." OrsonPratt said,</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">The Gods who dwell in the Heaven from which   our spirits came, are beings who have been redeemed from the grave   in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were   laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once   in a fallen state. Their terrestrial world was redeemed, and   glorified, and made a Heaven: their terrestrial bodies, after   suffering death, were redeemed, and glorified, and made Gods. And   thus, as their world was exalted from a temporal to an eternal   state, they were exalted also, from fallen man to Celestial Gods   to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever. (<I>The Seer,</I> p. 23) </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">This teaching gives rise to what is known as the"Eternal Law of Progression" with which I would imagine you arefamiliar, and to which I will turn in just a moment. For now, I wishto emphasize that in Mormonism, God the Father is an "exalted man,"an <I>anthropomorphic god,</I> or, as one LDS acquaintance of mine put it, a <I>theomorphic man.</I>Whatever the case, God the Father was once a man and has"progressed," or, to use a term that might today carry with it somenegative connotations, "evolved" to his present position. ApostleGeorge Q. Canon did not seem to object to that description: </font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Men talk about evolution. This is the true   evolution-being such as we are and developing and advancing and   progressing in that upward and onward career until we shall become   like Him, in truth, until we shall possess the powers that He   possesses and exercise the dominion that He now exercises. This is   the promise that is held out to us. (<I>Gospel Truth, </I>1:131) </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">He also noted,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">TRUE EVOLUTION. We hear considerable about   evolution. Who is there that believes more in true evolution than   the Latter-day Saints-the evolution of man until he shall become a   god. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, believed in by the   Latter-day Saints. That is the kind of evolution we believe in,   but not the evolution of man from some low type of animal life. <I>(Gospel Truth,</I> 1:9)   </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">So we are taught by Mormonism that God the Fatherwas once a man, just like you or me, who lived on another planet. Hewas in a fallen state. He walked and talked like you and me. Weshould think that he worshiped the "god" of that world as well, whohimself, it would seem, was a man as well. And so it goes back intotime. Not only was God once a man, but, as Smith said, He continuesin that form, for "if the veil were rent today, and the great God whoholds this world in its orbit . . . was to make himself visible,-Isay, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man inform-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as aman." This is echoed in the Mormon Scriptures, <I>Doctrine and Covenants </I>130:22:</font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">The Father has a body of flesh and bones as   tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body   of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so,   the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">And so we see the first two elements of Smith'steaching: (1) the concept of polytheism, and (2) the concept that Godwas once a man who lived on another planet, and who continues toexist in a physical form.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">The third concept to be derived from Smith'ssermon given above is the doctrine of Eternal Progression. MormonApostle Bruce R. McConkie described it as follows:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Endowed with agency and subject to eternal   laws, man began his progression and advancement in pre-existence,   his ultimate goal being to attain to a state of glory, honor, and   exaltation like the Father of spirits. During his earth life he   gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things, and   prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he will   continue to gain knowledge and intelligence (D&amp;C 130:18-19).   This gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience-a   course that began in a past eternity and will continue in ages   future-is frequently referred to as a course of <I>eternal progression.</I>   </font>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">In the full sense, eternal progression is   enjoyed only by those who receive the fulness of the Father; they   have all power, all knowledge, and all wisdom; they gain a fulness   of truth, becoming one with the Father. All other persons are   assigned lesser places in the mansions that are prepared, and   their progression is not eternal and unlimited but in a specified   sphere.</FONT></P>      <P><font face="Verdana">Those who gain exaltation, having thus enjoyed   the fulness of eternal progression, become like God.   (<I>Mormon Doctrine,</I> pp. 238-39)</font></P></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Basically, the doctrine teaches that man beginsthe "cycle" when he is born as a spiritual son or daughter ofcelestial parents. This "preexistence" is something that all of us --you and I -- experienced. We had celestial parents -- in our case,Elohim (God the Father) and one of his celestial wives. Elohim andhis wives have physical bodies (as we saw above in D&amp;C130:22),but have <I>spiritual</I> offspring. From the point of this pre-existence, thesespirits are placed into physical bodies on a planet, to be "tested"during their "mortal probation." Somehow, in the process of enteringinto physical existence, the memory of the preexistence islost.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">During the mortal probation, man is faced with thechoice to do right and return back to God the Father, or go his ownway and reject what is good and proper. If man is faithful, andfollows all the commandments of God, he will be resurrected andexalted to the position of a god himself, then to begin the "cycle"all over again, becoming celestial parents of further spiritualoffspring. So, the process seems to be:</FONT></P><P><CENTER><B><FONT face="Verdana">Spiritual Children (to) -- MortalProbation (if faithful) (to) -- Exaltation</FONT></B></CENTER></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Obviously, that is a simplified version, for asMcConkie pointed out, many, if not most, of mankind will not attainto full exaltation, but will end up receiving a "lesser" positionafter death.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">You, then, Elder Hahn, believe that if you were tobe "faithful" during this life, including receiving your endowmentsin the temple, being sealed to your wife, etc., you could gain"exaltation" and become, as D&amp;C; 132:20 puts it, a god. So, wesee the third concept from Smith, the doctrine of eternalprogression; man and God are of the same kind of being; God is simplyfurther "advanced" than man in his present state. Indeed, ApostleMcConkie stated that "man is of the same race as Deity"(<I>The Promised Messiah,</I> p. 305). And if Elder McConkie's words are not sufficientto establish the point, please note the words of the <I>Encyclopedia of Mormonism, </I>published in 1992:</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">Latter-day Saints perceive the Father as anexalted Man in the most literal, anthropomorphic terms. They do notview the language of Genesis as allegorical; human beings are createdin the form and image of a God who has a physical form and image.Latter-day Saints deny the abstract nature of God the Father andaffirm that he is a concrete being, that he possesses a physicalbody, and that he is in space and time. They further reject any ideathat God the Father is "totally other," unknowable, orincomprehensible. Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage,the same species of being, although they and he are at differentstages of progress. The important points of the doctrine forLatter-day Saints are that Gods and humans are the same species ofbeing, but at different stages of development in a divine continuum,and that the heavenly Father and Mother are the heavenly pattern,model, and example of what mortals can become through obedience tothe gospel. (Stephen Robinson, "God the Father," <I>Encyclopedia of Mormonism</I>, pp.548-49)</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">There is one more concept that comes from Smith'steachings that is disputed by LDS people themselves. It is theconcept of the <I>continuing progression ofGod.</I> Early Mormon writers spoke much ofGod's continuing development and advancement. Smith directly said asmuch above, and he was followed by many of the prophets and apostlesof Mormonism after him. But, in our century, this concept haschanged. Today it is more fashionable to say that God's "progression"is now limited solely to the expansion of his "dominions andkingdoms." Note the following two quotations that show how clearlyLDS teaching in this point has changed:</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">If there was a point where man in his   progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would   throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God   himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and   dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. (Wilford Woodruff, <I>Journal of Discourses</I>, December 6, 1857, 6:120)   </font>      <P><font face="Verdana">It should be realized that God is not   progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the   attributes of godliness. (Bruce R. McConkie, <I>Mormon Doctrine</I>, 1966, p.   239)</font></P></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Is God progressing in knowledge or not? WilfordWoodruff said he was, Bruce McConkie said he wasn't, and JosephFielding Smith said the same thing. Some Mormons today say he is,more say he isn't. It is not consistent, I believe, to accept Smith'steachings and say that God is <I>not</I> progressing, but many LDStoday, realizing the problems attendant with the concept of achanging God, prefer to hold to a different belief.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">So the Mormon view of God, as seen above, includes(1) polytheism, the belief in more than one God; (2) the concept thatGod was once a man who lived on another planet, and who progressed tothe status of God; (3) the eternal law of progression, whereby, it issaid, men can become gods.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">While the number of quotations in support of theabove concepts could be multiplied indefinitely, I see no reason todo so, as you obviously hold to these concepts, given your commentsin your last letter. But, is the above teaching <I>true.</I> Please continue on andread carefully.</font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord!   (Deuteronomy 6:4) </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">So wrote Moses long, long ago. Deuteronomy 6:4 iscalled the <I>Shema</I>. It is the beginning of the central "confession of faith"of the Jewish people. Every Jewish prophet believed what Deuteronomy6:4 says. Every morning the pious Jew would pray a prayer that beganwith those words, "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord!"Surely the Lord Jesus, and His apostles, also prayed the <I>Shema</I>. Itunderlies all that the Bible teaches.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">The most basic revelation that God has made abouthimself, Elder Hahn, is that He is <I>uniqu</I>e. Something that is <I>unique</I> is "oneof a kind." Something that is unique is an "only" thing. There arenot multiple copies of something that is unique. God has revealedhimself to be utterly unique, the only God in all of heaven andearth.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">One of the most basic sins of man is idolatry. Manseems to have buried deep within his heart a bent toward worshipingthat which is <I>not</I> God. Though God had revealed himself to the people ofIsrael, they still engaged in idolatry, the worship of other gods.They would bow down before Baal and offer sacrifices to statues inhis image. The peopIes around them believed in many gods, and theyseemed to so quickly abandon the one true God for the false gods oftheir neighbors. Though God warned them over and over again of thetragic consequences of this kind of action, they often went their ownway, and ended up in bondage and defeat.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">During the ministry of the prophet Isaiah, Goddeemed it fitting to reveal through Isaiah more about himself than Heever had before. He did this in the form of challenges to the falsegods, the idols to which the people of Israel were in danger ofturning. For example, in Isaiah 41:4 we read,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Who hath wrought and done it, calling the   generations from the beginning I, the Lord , the first, and with   the last; I am he. </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">The question has only one answer: God is the onewho has called forth the generations, not any idols or false gods.And he continues in Isaiah 41:22-24,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Let them bring them forth, and show us what   shall happen; let them show the former things, what they are, that   we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare   us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter,   that we may know that ye are gods; yea, do good, or do evil, that   we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of   nothing, and your work of nought; an abomination is he who   chooseth you. </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Here God challenges the idols to tell us thefuture. Can they do it? No, only the true God of the universe cantell us the future, since He is the one who "calls forth thegenerations from the beginning." Idols cannot say what is going tohappen in the future because they have no control over it! God alsochallenges the idols to tell us what has happened in the past (the"former things"). Why Because God can not only tell us <I>what happened</I>,but, because He is the sovereign God of the universe, He can say just <I>why</I> those thingstook place! Idols cannot do that. God mocks the idols, and says,"Well, do <I>something</I> so that we may be frightened of you!" They can't doanything, because they are nothing more than blocks of stone or wood.Throughout Isaiah chapters 40 through 48 God "throws down thegauntlet" so to speak, challenging man's idols to do what only Godcan do. In Isaiah 45:2 (and in many other places in this section) Godidentifies himself as the one who "created the heavens, and stretchedthem out; he who spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out ofit; he who giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to themthat walk in it" (see also 44:24). Did the idols create the heavens?No, they themselves are created things, not the Creator. The true Godcreated all that exists and is the Author of all life as well.Similarly, Jeremiah wrote,</font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">But the Lord is the true God; he is the living   God, and an everlasting king; at his wrath the earth shall   tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his   indignation. Thus shall ye say to them, The gods that have not   made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the   earth, and from under these heavens. (Jeremiah 10:10-11) </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">It is in the midst of this "trial of the falsegods" in Isaiah that the clearest, most unambiguous statements ofabsolute <I>monotheism</I> are to be found. But, before reviewing these passages (andI choose them as being representative of a teaching that is to befound throughout the Bible), allow me to address the immediateobjection that is made by LDS apologists. "But, these passages aresimply teaching that, <I>for thisworld</I>, there is only one God. God is justtelling the Israelites that they are to worship only Him, not anyothers. This does not mean that there are not other Gods in theuniverse." I hope you do not mind my anticipating your answer, butwhen the same reply has been given to you by a hundred differentmissionaries, you become accustomed to it.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">There are a number of reasons why this objectiondoes not hold up to scrutiny. First, as I noted above, in thesepassages God describes himself in ways that are utterly inconsistentwith the concept that He is simply claiming to be the God of thisplanet only. He describes himself as the Creator of all things, not <I>just</I> this planetbut all the heavens as well. If God actually once lived on a planetas a man, just like you and me, then there must have been a "Creator"of that planet as well, right That would mean that there are worldsthat God did <I>not</I>create, prior to his own "rise to godship." But such is not whatthese passages say. Secondly, God describes himself as the veryCreator of time itself, both past, present, and future. How could Godbe the Creator of time if, in fact, He had "progressed" through timeto attain the status of God Finally, we shall see that God directlyasserts that there are no gods <I>like</I> Him to which people canturn-in fact, He will assert that He himself knows of no othergods.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">We begin by looking at what is probably the most"popular" verse that Christians use in sharing with Mormons relevantto the doctrine of God-Isaiah 43:10. We hear God speaking, </FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my   servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and   understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed,   neither shall there be after me. </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Here God calls Israel as His "witnesses." They areto testify to the truth of what He has said. And what are they togive testimony to "<I>Before me there was noGod formed, neither shall there be after me</I>. No gods before, none after. None preceded Him, none shalltake up where He leaves off. Many have said, "Well, He is justtalking about false gods," but can we really accept this reasoningThere were no false gods before Him, and there shall be no false godsafter Him. No, certainly not. The meaning is clear and unambiguous.He is the Self Existent One, the Eternal One. There was no one to"create" Him, and there will be no one who will "take His place" ineternity to come. He is the only God there is. He does not followafter any others (over against Joseph Smith's direct teachings, as weshall see later), and none will follow after Him. One God, oneCreator. No others.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Please note as well, Elder Hahn, how this passagecuts the "eternal law of progression" right down the middle. Goddenies that He is in reality but one god in a long line of godsstretching back into eternity by denying that there has ever been anyother God but Him. And, He denies that any "god" could ever arise inthe future, denying that men can indeed become gods as He is God. Butthis is certainly not all God has to say about this subject. In fact,the claim that He is the only God becomes downright repetitious asone reads through these passages. It certainly seems God wanted tomake His point clear! In Isaiah 44:6-8 we read,</FONT></P><DL>   <FONT face="Verdana">Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his   redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and   beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall   declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the   ancient people and the things that are coming, and shall come, let   them show unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I   told thee from that time, and have declared it ye are even my   witnesses. Is there a God beside me yea, there is no God; I know   not any. </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">The God of Israel is the "first and the last." Canthe god described by Joseph Smith in King Follet's funeral sermonmake that claim, Elder Hahn? Can he say, "Beside me there is no God?"When the true God of the Bible asks, "Is there a God beside me?" Hecan answer without hesitation: "Yea, there is no God; I know not any.Please remember that God's understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5),and His knowledge knows no limits (Romans 11:33). Surely, <B><I>if</I></B> Godwas once a man who lived on another planet, and <B><I>if</I></B>, as Joseph Smith taught,the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages,and separate and distinct gods, would God not have knowledge of theseother gods? How could God the Father have become exalted withoutknowledge of the god of the planet upon which He lived Surely, ifthere are indeed many gods in the heavens who have progressed totheir status of godhood over ages and ages of time, Elohim, the Godof this world, would know of them, would He not If Joseph Smith knewthey existed, how could God not know they existed Yet, here God saysplainly, "I know not any other God." How can this be, except thatthere are no other Gods Surely this is His point. In fact, God makesthis point clear over and over again in the following verses: </font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">I am the Lord, and there is none else, there   is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:   That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,   that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none   else. (Isaiah 45:5-6) </FONT>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">For thus saith the Lord that created the   heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath   established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be   inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. (Isaiah   45:18)</FONT></P>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">and there is no God else beside me; a just God   and a Savior; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye   saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none   else. (Isaiah 45:21b-22)</FONT></P>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">Remember the former things of old: for I am   God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,   declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the   things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and   I will do all my pleasure. (Isaiah 46:9-10)</FONT></P></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">It seems inarguable, then, that God made the factof His utter uniqueness as the only God painfully clear through theprophet Isaiah. But, of course, that is not the only way in which Godhas revealed this truth. It is all through the Bible, underlyingevery statement about God to be found. Everyone who believes thetestimony of the Bible can say with the Psalmist, "For all the godsof the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens" (Psalm96:5).</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">So we see that the first of Smith's concepts isdirectly contrary to the Word of God. There is only one God. Thesecond concept I listed was the idea that God was once a man wholived on another planet, and, I might add to that, the concept thatGod is a man, that He shares the very same kind of being as mankind,that He is of the "same species." Let's now examine this in the lightof the Scriptures.</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">I will not execute the fierceness of mine   anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not   man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into   the city. (Hosea 11:9) </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">In this passage, God indicates that He will notcome upon the people in wrath. Why Because He is God, and not man.There is a basic, foundational difference between man, who is thecreation of God, and God, who is the Creator of all things. God isnot man, but the Creator of man. He is utterly different.</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">God is not a man, that he should lie; neither   the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he   not do it or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good   (Numbers 23:19) </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">God is different than man. He is not changeable,as man is. He is not liable to sin, as man is. In fact, inreproaching the wicked in the fiftieth psalm, God said,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">These things hast thou done, and I kept   silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as   thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before   thine eyes. (Psalm 50:21) </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Man likes to attempt to make God in <I>man's</I> image. Itis much more comfortable to "cut God down to size" so to speak, andthink of Him as just a "super-man," and this is nowhere as clearlyseen as it is in the doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church. BruceR. McConkie wrote,</font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Man and God are of the same race, and it is   within the power of righteous man to become like his Father, that   is to become a holy Man, a Man of Holiness. (Mormon Doctrine, pp.   465-66) </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">The same concept is to be found in the D&C;,where, in section 93 we read,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Man was also in the beginning with God.   Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made,   neither indeed can be. (v. 29) </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">But the God of the Bible will not allow himself tobe put into human categories. He directly denies the idea that He islike a man, and surely He is not a changeable being like man is. Hewill reprove those who would make the mistake of thinking that He is"altogether such an one as thyself." Indeed, the LDS concept of Godis well described, and refuted, by Scripture, as we see in Isaiah29:16 (NIV):</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">You turn things upside down, as if the potter   were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him   who formed it, "He did not make me" Can the pot say of the potter,   "He knows nothing?" </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Rather than the changing, evolving God ofMormonism (even if one believes that He is not <I>now</I> evolving, He was, at somepoint in the past, a changing being), the Bible presents the eternaland unchanging God:</font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Before the mountains were brought forth, or   ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from   everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (Psalm 90:2) </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">The Jews would frequently refer to God simply as"the Eternal One." They had good reason to do so. God has always beenGod, He has never been anything else. Elder Hahn, I have had many LDSpeople ask me, "Who created God" I reply, "No one created God, as Godis uncreated and eternal -- He is the Creator of everything else, andthat includes everything in the universe, including time itself!Pretty incredible, isn't He?" Some laugh, some scoff, but the Bibleteaches it. "I am the Lord, I change not" (Malachi 3:6). That is theconfession of God. He is not changing, He has always been what He istoday, the Sovereign King of all the universe. While Joseph Smithmight have desired to refute the concept that God has been God fromall eternity, to do so he would have to remove just about everydescription of God from the Bible, and would have to close God's ownmouth when He says,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">And I am God. Even from eternity I am He; And   there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can   reverse it (Isaiah 43:12b-l3, NASB) </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">Most LDS do not believe that God is omnipresent,but rather believe that He is limited in time and space. Obviously,if God has a body of flesh and bone, it is easy to understand howthis would be. But the Bible presents a very different teaching aboutGod. Listen to what God said to Jeremiah:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Can any hide himself in secret places that I   shall not see him saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth   saith the Lord. (Jeremiah 23:24) </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">The physical universe is the creation of God andtherefore God cannot be limited by that which He created, can He? TheGod of Mormonism did not, in reality, create <I>all things</I>, for there obviouslywere "worlds without number" that existed long before Elohim became agod. And, in fact, Joseph Smith taught that matter itself is eternal,and therefore uncreated, and went on to say that "God never had thepower to create the spirit of man at all" (<I>Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith</I>, p. 354). But this is just another difference between theGod of the Bible and the God of Joseph Smith. The true God is theCreator of <I>all things</I>, and He is not limited by His creation, for, as He himselfsaid, "Do not I fill heaven and earth" (Jeremiah 23:24).</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">So we see that God is not, in His true andabsolute nature, a man. He is the eternal God, the Creator of allthings, including mankind. He is not limited by the physicaluniverse, so He is not limited to one place at one time. We also seethat the third concept taught by Smith, the idea that man can becomea god, is false as well; if there is but one infinite and eternalGod, it is impossible for a second infinite and eternal god to arise.Men were created to be men, Elder Hahn, not gods. The Bible says thatGod has always been God, so unless you have always been god, youcannot <I>become</I> agod. Not only this, but remember what Jeremiah recorded for us inJeremiah 10:10 Any "god" who is not the Creator will perish, for theyare all false gods who are not the Creator. There is only oneCreator, the true God of the Bible. Before I close this letter, andallow you to reply, let me deal with a few passages that almost <I>always</I> come upwhen this particular doctrine is addressed. In fact, the one youmentioned when we first met at my home, Elder Hahn, was John10:34.</font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your   law, I said, Ye are gods. </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">As I said earlier, the first thing to do whenapproaching any passage of Scripture is to determine the context --what was being said, and to whom. John 10:1-l8 presents Jesus as theGood Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep. Verse 19 tells usthat the Jews were divided over the issue of who Jesus was, somesaying He had a demon, others pointing to His works and saying thatdemonized individuals don't do things like that. In verses 22-25 theJews surrounded Jesus in Solomon's porch and asked Him directly if Hewas the Messiah. Jesus' answer in verses 25-30 represents one of thegreatest Christological passages in John. Christ finishes the briefdiscourse with the words, "I and my Father are one." The Jews'reaction to this statement was natural and quick -- they picked uprocks to stone Him. Jesus asks them for a reason for their action inverse 32, and in verse 33 the Jews respond by saying, "For a goodwork we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou,being a man, makest thyself God." Again John points out the realproblem of the Jews -- they would not accept Jesus Christ for whom Herevealed himself to be. Jesus had earlier addressed this problem inJohn 8:24 by saying, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die inyour sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in yoursins."</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">At this point we encounter Jesus' words in John10:34. A few brief comments need to be made on the passage itself.First, Jesus says, "Is it not written in your law?" This is found inPsalm 82:6. This is vital to the understanding of the passage. Jesusoften quoted from the Old Testament to demonstrate a truth to theJews. I will look at that passage in a moment.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">Second, the word "are" is in the present tense --if someone claims that this passage teaches that men can become gods,why is it that Jesus said the Jews were <I>right then</I> "gods" However Hemeant it, it certainly cannot be taken in reference to eventuallybeing exalted to the status of a true "god."</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Jesus went on from verse 34 to claim that He wassanctified and sent into the world by the Father, and that theyshould believe in Him if for no other reason than the works He haddone before them.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">And so we come back to the original question, thistime in a better position to answer it. The key to understanding John10:34 is found in Jesus' use of the Old Testament quotation fromPsalm 82. What is Psalm 82 about? The answer is found by reading thisbrief eight-verse Psalm. Verse 2, in reference to the "gods," says,"How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of thewicked?" Psalm 82 is about unrighteous judges of Israel. These judgeswere called "elohim" (gods) because of their position of judgingIsrael in the place of God. Yet Psalm 82 indicates that many of thesejudges did not act righteously, causing the Psalmist to lament thiscondition. Notice what verses 6 and 7 say: "I have said, Ye are gods;and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die likemen, and fall like one of the princes." The psalm itself contains theprophecy of the doom of these unrighteous judges. Obviously,therefore, the psalm is not about eternal, infinite gods (infinite,true gods don't "die like men") but rather applies the term <I>gods</I> to men in afigurative way due to their position as judges in Israel.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">Realizing that the Jews would know thisbackground, what was the significance of Jesus' quotation of Psalm82:6 As can be seen, Jesus was, in effect, calling His <I>accusers false judges</I> by applying this passage to them. He then goes on to pointout the error of accusing Him of blasphemy despite the Father's clearapproval of the Son (John 10:36). Then in verse 38 He asserts theinter-penetration of the Father and the Son ("the Father is in me,and I in him"), which is followed again by the attack of the Jews(vs. 39), which causes Jesus to withdraw from Judea (vs. 40). Anykind of interpretation of John 10:34 that ignores the Old Testamentbackground of the passage is bound for error. The interpretation youprovided to me in my home, Elder Hahn, is certainly incorrect, is itnot?</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">A favorite of many LDS is Matthew 5:48: </FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father   which is in heaven is perfect. </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Many LDS assume that this means that men canbecome gods, yet, is this what Jesus is saying? This text comes fromthe Sermon on the Mount. In this section Jesus is laying out the"kingdom standards" for the people of God. This section is <I>ethical</I> innature, and the standard of perfection to which He calls us isethical and moral. The Lord is not addressing the vast chasm thatseparates the creature, man, from the Creator, God, but is insteadcalling us to the moral perfection that is God's. Such is hardly asolid basis for teaching that creatures can cease being creatures andbecome gods!</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Another passage that is very often presented asevidence of polytheism in the Bible is I Corinthians 8:5. However, toget the full context, let's look at verses 4-6:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">As concerning therefore the eating of those   things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an   idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but   one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven   or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), but to us   there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we   in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we   by him. </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">This passage opens a discussion by the ApostlePaul on the sensitive topic of behavior among believers, and thematter of each person's conscience. He is answering a question thatmust have been included in a letter sent to him by the congregationat Corinth ("now concerning the eating of those things sacrificed toidols . . .). Idols were a very common sight in Corinth, as in manyancient cities of the time (though Corinth was notorious for itsidolatrous behavior). Some of the believers, having been involved inidol worship, could not with a clear conscience partake of meat thatthey knew had been sacrificed to idols. This was a serious problem,because nearly every bit of the meat in the city may have beeninvolved in such practices.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Paul addresses the problem by first saying thatidols "are nothing in the world." An idol has no power over theChristian. It has no reality other than the demonic power that wouldcause someone to worship it. There was no real Diana, or Jupiter, orany of the other false gods of the age. He then puts forth the factthat though things or people may be called "gods," to the Christianthere is only one God, the Father, and one Lord , Jesus Christ(obviously connecting them in a supernatural way). In the process,Paul says that "there are gods many, and lords many. Obviously whathe meant by this is that there are many false gods and false lordsbeing worshiped by nonbelievers, but these are simply idols of man'sown making. One can make a god out of almost anything: As someone putit -- some people get up in the morning and shave their god in themirror, others get into their god and drive it to work, while otherssit in front of their god for hours each night and simply watch it.Idolatry is alive and well today.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">The fact that Paul is alluding to false gods isbrought out more clearly in some modern translations:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">For even if there are so-called gods whether   in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many   lords . . . (NASB) </FONT>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">For even if there are so-called gods, whether   in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many   "lords"). (NIV)</FONT></P></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">As we saw above, the Bible says that "all the godsof the peoples are idols." (Psalm 96:5). In context, then, Paul isnot saying that he believed in polytheism, but rather he was amonotheist-he believed in only one God.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Now in light of this, Elder Hahn, it is amazing toread the words of Joseph Smith in regards to this verse. Hesaid,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">You know and I testify that Paul had no   allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it   if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony   that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. <I>(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph   Smith</I>, p. 371) </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">Given that it was the Spirit of God who inspiredthe writing of Paul's admonitions in I Corinthians 8:4-6, and we cansee that the passage itself indicates that Paul is indeed speaking ofidols-the "heathen gods"-how can we accept Joseph Smith's testimonywhen it is flatly contradictory to the Bible</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Another passage that is frequently presented isfrom Acts 7:55-56:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked   up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus   standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the   heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of   God. </FONT></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Often I have heard LDS people say, "See, Stephensaw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. God, then, must have aright hand at which Jesus can stand." Even some LDS have gone so faras to make this a literal right hand, which, it seems, Jesus wasstanding <I>upon</I>.In reply, let me note a few items:</font></P><DL>   <DD><FONT face="Verdana">He shall cover thee with his feathers, and   under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield   and buckler. (Psalm 91:4) </FONT></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">If we take this passage in the way that many LDStake Acts 7:55- 56, we have to be consistent and say that God notonly has a hand big enough for Jesus to stand on it (that's a BIGhand!), but He also has wings and feathers. In Hebrews we are toldthat our God is a consuming fire, so should we need to somehow fit ablast furnace into the whole anthropomorphic picture we are makinghere No, of course not.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">God is spirit, and a spirit does not have fleshand bones (John 4:24; Luke 24:39). So what does "right hand" mean The"right hand" is a common idiomatic expression in Semitic thinking,Elder, and it refers to the position of power and authority. But, youdon't need to take my word for it, look these up for yourself: Exodus15:6, 15:12; Deuteronomy 33:2; Job 40:14; Psalm 16:8, 16:11, 17:7,18:35, 20:6, 21:8, 44:3, 45:4, 45:9, 48:10, 60:5, 63:8, 73:23, 77:10,78:54, 80:15, 80:17, 89:13, 98:1, 108:6, 109:6, 109:31, 110:1,118:15-16, 138:7; Proverbs 3:16; Ecclesiastes 10:2; Isaiah 41:10,Isaiah 48:13; Habakkuk 2:16, and Matthew 26:64, where it isspecifically the "right hand <I>ofpower</I>."</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">The vast majority of the rest of the times it isused it refers simply to a direction, or is used in the phrase "donot turn to the right hand or to the left" in following God's law.There is much more that I would like to share with you about the Godof the Bible, Elder Hahn, but I will allow you to respond to thismaterial first. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Yourcontinuing willingness to deal with these issues is very commendable,and I hope that we will again have an opportunity to meet and discusssome of these things in person. I want you to know that you are in myprayers. I am praying that you will listen to the words of the Spiritas He has spoken in the Scriptures.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Sincerely,</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">James White</FONT></P><P><h1><HR SIZE="10"><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#AF0000" face="Verdana">Letter 5 -- Elohim and Jehovah: OneGod</FONT></h1></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Thursday, June 21</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Dear Elder Hahn,</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">Welcome to summer in Phoenix! Predicted hightoday? Yes, 115&#176;! But, as they say, it is a <B>dry heat, </B>right? As if that madeany difference! I hate to tell you this, but last summer we had over140 days that were over 100&#176; and that was a new record! Not onlythat, but on two occasions it reached our all-time record, 118&#176;.Aren't you happy about that! I surely hope you have access to anair-conditioned car these days.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">I received your message on my answering machinelast evening, and I understand your inability to get around to a fullrebuttal of my last letter. I appreciate your invitation to go aheadand address the other issues mentioned in my letter. Your Bibledictionary in the back of the 1981 edition of the King James Versionof the Bible, on pages 710 -- 11, says,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Jehovah. The covenant or proper name of the   God of Israel. It denotes the "Unchangeable One," "the eternal I   AM" (Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 12:2; 26:4). The original   pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in   reading, never mentioned it, but substituted one of the other   names of God, usually Adonai. Probably it was pronounced Jahveh,   or Yahveh. In the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and   the name is generally denoted by LORD or GOD, being printed in   small capitals. Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ and came to   earth being born of Mary. </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">I made a special effort, in my preceding letter,to avoid addressing the issue that I now present to you because it issomewhat complicated at first glance. However, I also made a specialeffort to accurately cite the Bible and indicate when the KJVutilized the special form of the word "lord" that is printed likethis: LORD. Note the small capitals used to inform the English readerthat, as your Bible dictionary said above, the Hebrew term that isbeing translated as LORD is YHWH, or Yahweh, or, as you wouldprobably put it, Jehovah. You will find that form of LORD all throughyour Old Testament, Elder Hahn. Each time you see that, you will knowyou are actually seeing the name of Yahweh, or Jehovah.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">Why is this small bit of information important?Well, as you know, in Mormon belief, the Father and the Son areseparate and distinct individuals, and separate and distinct gods.LDS doctrine has identified the Father by the term Elohim, as Imentioned in my earlier letter. The word is from the Hebrew language,and is, as you are aware, normally rendered simply as "God" in theKJV. While Joseph Smith was right to point out that the term Elohimis plural in Hebrew, he was just as <B>wrong</B> to say that it should thenbe translated as "gods." While it is translated "gods" in somecontexts, the number of the verb with which it is used, as well asthe context of the passage, is the determinative factor. When it isused with a singular verb, it should be translated singularly, not asa plural.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">Be that as it may, in Mormonism the Father is"Elohim." Now, the Son, Jesus Christ, is identified as Jehovah by theLDS Church. Therefore, since the Father and Son are separate anddistinct gods, then Jehovah and Elohim also are separate and distinctgods. Mormon scholar James Talmage, in his book <B>Articles of Faith,</B> in Appendix2, presents a discussion of this very issue, and in doing so presents"The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by The FirstPresidency and the Twelve." Below I quote from this work:</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">1. "Father" as Literal Parent Scriptures   embodying the ordinary signification -- literally that of Parent   -- are too numerous and specific to require citation. The purport   of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father,   whom we designate by the exalted name-title "Elohim," is the   literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the   spirits of the human race. Elohim is the Father in every sense in   which Jesus Christ is so designated, and distinctively He is the   Father of spirits. </font>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">2. [. . .] Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both   as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is   literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the   body in which Jesus Clrrist performed His mission in the flesh,   and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the   process of resurrection. .</FONT></P>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">3. [. . .] With this meaning, as the context shows   in every case, Jehovah who is Jesus Clrrist the Son of Elohim.   .</FONT></P>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">4. [. . .] None of these considerations, however,   can change in the least degree the solemn fact of the literal   relationship of Father and Son between Elohim and Jesus Christ.   Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is   Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. . . .   (James Talmage, <B>Articles of   Faith,</B> pp. 466 -- 72)</FONT></P></DL><P><font face="Verdana">Lord willing, ElderHahn, I shall return to thesubject of Jesus Christ being the <B>literal</B> offspring of God theFather in the flesh, and what this means with regards to the virginbirth, etc. But for now, I am attempting to set this point firmlybefore us: In Mormon belief, the Father is Elohim; the Son, JesusChrist, is Jehovah. Since the Father and the Son are separate anddistinct gods, then Elohim and Jehovah are, in Mormonism, names ofseparate and distinct gods. Now I recognize that many LDS have said,"Well, Jehovah can be called 'Elohim' in the sense that Jehovah is a <B>god.</B>" Irecognize this fact. However, what is clear is that Jehovah can notbe said to be Elohim, and certainly, if we find the Lord Jesusidentifying the Father as Jehovah, we find a real problem in LDStheology. If I might allow Elder McConkie to address theissue:</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Being thus aware of how far astray the   religious intellectualists have gone in defining their   three-in-one God, it comes as no surprise to learn that they   thrash around in the same darkness in trying to identify Elohim   and Jehovah and to show their relationship to the promised   Messiah. Some sectarians even believe that Jehovah is the Supreme   Deity whose Son came into mortality as the Only Begotten. As with   their concept that God is a Spirit, this misinformation about the   Gods of Heaven is untrue. The fact is, and it too is attested by   Holy Writ, that Elohim is the Father, and that Jehovah is the Son   who was born into mortality as the Lord Jesus Christ, the promised   Messiah. (<B>The Promised   Messiah,</B> p. 100) </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">I was "biting my lip" so to speak in my previousletter, as so often I wanted to bring out the underlyingidentification of Jehovah as the <B>only</B> "elohim" that is made sooften in the passages I quoted to you. If you would, go back now and,realizing that whenever you see the word "LORD" in those passages inIsaiah (or elsewhere), you are reading about Jehovah, and almostalways when you see the word "God" you are reading about Elohim,reread those passages and see how often LDS belief is contradicted bythe words of the Bible. Note some of the more obviouspassages:</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Isaiah 43: l0b"before me there was no God [El,   the shortened form of Elohim] formed, neither shall there be after   me." <B>[Note that it is Jehovah who is   here speaking.]</B> </font>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">Isaiah 45:5 -- I am the LORD, [Jehovah], and   there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside me." There is   no Elohim beside Jehovah? That is what the Bible says.</FONT></P></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">How can it be that Jehovah can say that there isno Elohim beside Him? Of course, I believe that the only God anywhereis Jehovah God, so that is easy for me to answer. But you must beasking why the Bible does speak of "Elohim" as God as well, right?The answer is pretty clear:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Deuteronomy 4:35, 36 Unto thee it was shown,   that thou mightest know that the LORD [Jehovah] he is God   [Elohim]; there is none else beside him. . . . Know therefore this   day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD [Jehovah] he is   God [Elohim] in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is   none else. </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">You see, Elder Hahn, <B>Jehovah IS Elohim. </B>Both namesrefer to the one God of the Bible, not to two different gods. Infact, the compound name "Jehovah Elohim" occurs over 500 times in theOld Testament, all referring to the one God of Israel, Jehovah. It isJehovah who created all things, Jehovah who has eternally existed asGod.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">Let me point out a few specific things in theabove quotation from Deuteronomy 4. First, note that the fact thatJehovah is Elohim is repeated twice -- the same truth is to be seenin such passages as l Kings 18:39 and Psalm 100:3. The term <B>Elohim</B> isdefinite in the Hebrew language; that is, it has the definite articlebefore it. This is <B>the</B> Elohim about which we are speaking, which would indicatethat this is not just a description of Jehovah as "a god" as in atitle. If the LDS Church is going to say that there is a separate Godnamed "Elohim," then that is the God under discussion here. Next,note that if Jehovah and Elohim were separate gods, the passage wouldsay "there is none other besides them." But, of course, it doesn'tsay that. It says there is none else beside <B>him.</B> Yes, the term is singularin the Hebrew. <B>It is utterly impossible, onthe basis of the Bible, to distinguish between Jehovah and Elohim. </B>The Bible simply will not allow for it.There is only one God, "Jehovah Elohim."</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Let's look at another passage, Exodus34:14:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">For thou shalt worship no other god; for the   LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">Elder Hahn, if there are indeed three separate anddistinct gods for this planet -- Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost-- which one do we worship? Do we worship Elohim only? Do we worshipJehovah? Who? Apostle Bruce R. McConkie addressed this issue in atalk he gave at Brigham Young University in March of 1982. In thisspeech (in which he declared that people "should not strive for aspecial and personal relationship with Christ") he addressed thequestion of whom we should truly worship. Here is what hesaid:</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">We worship the Father and him only and no one   else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy   Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about   worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an   entirely different sense -- the sense of standing in awe and being   reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the   true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the   Creator. </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">Apostle McConkie said that his words were"doctrine of the Church," and he said that "everyone who is soundspiritually and who has guidance of the Holy Spirit will believe mywords and follow my counsel." In this talk we are told that "Christworked out his own salvation by worshipping the Father." How strangethis sounds to the person who understands the monotheism of theBible! Indeed, how absurd it is to think of Jehovah worshipingsomeone higher than himself!</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Psalm 97:9 -- "For thou, LORD, art high above   all the earth; thou art exalted far above all gods." </font>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">Psalm 135:5 -- "For I know that the LORD is   great, and our Lord is above all gods."</FONT></P>      <P><FONT face="Verdana">There is none above Jehovah, there is none   beside Him. Jehovah worships none, but is to be worshiped by all,   for He is the one true God.</FONT></P></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">This takes us back to the Scripture at hand,Exodus 34:14. Here we are told that worship -- and who can doubt thatthis means worship in its highest sense, for the context is that ofworshiping gods -- belongs solely and completely to Jehovah. We areto worship no other God than Jehovah. Jesus expressed this in Matthew4:10 when He rebuked Satan by saying, "Worship the Lord your God, andserve him only." Since Jesus is worshipped in the Bible, it is clearthat both the Father and the Son along with the Spirit are the oneJehovah. Worship is due to none else.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">You are left with a dilemma, then, Elder Hahn.Whom shall you worship? Since Mormons are polytheistic and believethat there are true gods other than Jehovah, they are left in asituation where there is no solution. Worship, true worship, demandsstrict monotheism. Mormonism does not have a proper knowledge of thetrue God, hence true worship is impossible. Therefore, when youworship a god other than Jehovah, Elder Hahn, you are doing so inviolation of not only Exodus 34:14, but also of the first commandmentas recorded in Exodus 20:2-3, which states,</FONT></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">I am the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, which have   brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of   bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (See also   Deuteronomy 5:6-7) </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">You have a god before Jehovah, Elder Hahn! YourMormon beliefs are causing you to break the very first commandment ofGod himself! Is there a more <B>basic </B>truth of God than this, that He aloneshould be worshiped? No, there is not. Yet, when you attempt to makethe Bible into a polytheistic book, in the process you end upcreating such a mess that you have to break the very firstcommandment! As I said before, the fact of God's <B>uniqueness</B> is the most basictruth revealed in Scripture. It is central to properly worshipingGod, wouldn't you agree? And can you see how very <B>dangerous</B> it is to be in erroron this issue, Elder? If these passages of Scripture are correct, youhave been led into a grave error -- the sin of idolatryitself.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">The fact that Jehovah is the <B>only</B> God acknowledged by theBible is to be found all through the Old Testament. Jehovah is theCreator of all that is. Remember the passages from Isaiah that we sawin my previous letter? Look at this one from Isaiah 44:24: </font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], thy redeemer,   and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD [Jehovah]   that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone;   that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. </font></DL><P><FONT face="Verdana">I realize how sensitive the subject of theendowment ceremony in the Mormon temple is to you, Elder, and I shallnot ask you to comment on this issue, as I know you would feeluncomfortable doing so, but I wanted to point out to you that in theLDS temple ceremonies Elohim, the Father, is portrayed sendingJehovah and Michael down to "organize" the earth. How can youreconcile this teaching with the statements made by Jehovah here inIsaiah 44:24? Jehovah claims to have stretched out the heavens"alone" and to have spread abroad the earth by himself! Wasn't Elohiminvolved? What about Michael? Of course, as we have seen, Jehovah isElohim, and that is the explanation of this passage. Jehovah is theonly Creator there is, since He is the only God there is. Making twogods out of the one God of the Bible can only lead you to confusionand error.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Above I mentioned the fact that some LDS haveattempted to avoid the clear difficulties attendant with their beliefin two separate gods, Elohim and Jehovah, by asserting that Jehovahcan indeed be called Elohim, and not compromise their theology. But,upon pressing them further, I have asked, "could then the Father everbe identified as Jehovah?" "No!" was the consistent reply. Jehovah isa name reserved solely and completely for the Son. However, I wouldlike to point out, Elder Hahn, that the Bible clearly teaches thatthe name "Jehovah" is connected with the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit as well. You do not object to the identification of theSon as Jehovah, of course, and I will not here delve into the issueof the identification of the Spirit as Jehovah other than to simplypoint you to such passages as Isaiah 6:9; Acts 28:25-26; Exodus 4:11;1 Corinthians 12:10-11. The main issue here is the identification ofthe Father as Jehovah.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">The popular LDS booklet <B>What the Mormons Think of Christ</B>quotes Matthew 22:41-46, and in so doing <B>twists</B> the Scriptures to hidethe clear fact that here Jesus identifies the Father as Jehovah. Howis this done? Below I give you the quotation <B>exactly</B> as it appears in thepamphlet, including the brackets (you can check this against thecopies that were in your Book of Mormon the evening you were at myhome):</font></P><DL>   <DD><font face="Verdana">"While the Pharisees were gathered together,   Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is   he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How   then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, the Lord [Elohim,   the Father] said unto my Lord [Jehovah, the Son], Sit thou on my   right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then   call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer   him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any   more questions." (p. 6 in the 1976 and 1982 editions) </font></DL><P><font face="Verdana">The Mormon authors of this pamphlet have added theinformation that the quotation Jesus gives of Psalm 110:1 identifiesthe Father speaking to the Son, which is correct, as far as it goes. <B>Incorrect</B> is theinformation added -- that being that the first "Lord" is "Elohim,"and the second "Lord" is "Jehovah." Is this true? Does Psalm 110:1say that Elohim spoke to Jehovah as if there were two different godshere, one Elohim and one Jehovah?</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">No indeed! Let's look at Psalm 110:1 from the KJV:"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I makethine enemies thy footstool." Note, Elder Hahn, that the passage saysthat "Jehovah said unto my Lord (Hebrew: Adonai)" not "Elohim said toJehovah." The name "Elohim" does not even appear in the passage. Ifthis is indeed the Father speaking to the Son, as the pamphlet says(and I agree), then what we have here is Jehovah (the Father)speaking to the Son (Adonai, "Lord"). Clearly, then, the Father ishere identified as Jehovah, the one speaking to the Son. Since it isalso clear that the Bible also says Jesus is Jehovah, then we mustconclude, as the Christian Church always has, that Jehovah is <B>tri-personal; </B>that is, that three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)share the one being that is Jehovah God. I realize that for a personraised in LDS teaching, who is accustomed to believing in a finitegod, this could be confusing. What you need to realize is that theGod of the Bible is infinite -- that is, he is unlimited. His being,therefore, can be shared by more than one person, just as the Bibleteaches.</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">There are other references that identify theFather as Jehovah. For example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan,Satan demanded worship from Christ. Jesus replied by stating that oneis to worship God alone. In doing so he quoted Deuteronomy 6:13 and10:20 (passages specifically about Jehovah God) in reference to theFather. No one who listened to the Lord Jesus speak and preachdoubted that when He spoke of the Father, He was speaking of JehovahGod.</FONT></P><P><font face="Verdana">I hope you will think about this and find the timeto respond. I realize, however, that you may be very confused,especially about the relationship of the Father, the Son, and theSpirit, considering what I have written. So, in closing, I would likevery quickly to make <B>sure</B> you understand what Christians believe about the doctrineof the Trinity. If you would like to discuss it further at anotherpoint, that is fine with me. I have met so many Mormons who have avery flawed understanding of the Trinity that I would like to attemptto head off any problems we might have right now.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">For me, simplifying the doctrine of the Trinity toits most basic elements has been very important and very useful. Whenwe reduce the discussion to the three clear biblical teachings thatunderlie the Trinity, we can move our discussion from the abstract tothe concrete biblical data, and can help individuals such as yourselfunderstand why Bible-believers such as myself believe in the Trinity,despite the fact that the word <B>Trinity</B> does not appear in thetext of Scripture.</font></P><P><font face="Verdana">We must remember that very few have a good idea ofwhat the Trinity is in the first place -- hence, accuracy indefinition will be very important. The doctrine of the Trinity statesthat there is one eternal being of God -- indivisible, infinite. Thisone being of God is shared by what we call three co-equal, co-eternalpersons -- the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is good here todistinguish between the terms <B>being</B> and <B>person</B>. It would be acontradiction to say that there are three beings within one being, orthree persons within one person. So what is the difference? </font></P><P><font face="Verdana">We clearly recognize the difference between beingand person every day. We recognize <B>what </B>something is, yet we also recognizeindividuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the <B>being</B> of man --human being. A rock has <B>being</B> -- the being of a rock, asdoes a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personalattributes as well. The Bible tells us there are threeclassifications of personal beings -- God, men, and angels. What ispersonality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself.Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over againstothers, and, for example, work for the common good of "catkind."Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite <B>being</B> of God,shared fully and completely by three <B>personal</B> self-distinctions:Father, Son, and Spirit. I use the phrase "personalself-distinctions" rather than "persons" simply because you, as aMormon, would be highly likely to attach to that term a physicalform, which would be an incorrect assumption. When I speak of a"divine Person" I am <B>not</B> referring to a physical human being, but to a Person whois <B>personal</B> --that is, who speaks, loves, wills, etc. The term, for me, does <B>not</B> refer to aphysical manifestation. And note this as well, Elder Hahn: I am notsaying that the Father is the Son, or the Son the Spirit, or theSpirit the Father. It is very common for people to misunderstand thedoctrine to mean that we are saying Jesus is the Father. The doctrineof the Trinity does not in any way say this!</font></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">The three biblical doctrines that flow directlyinto the river that is the Trinity are as follows: (1) There is oneand only one God, eternal, unchanging. (2) There are three eternalPersons described in Scripture -- the Father, the Son, and theSpirit. These Persons are never confused with one another -- that is,they are carefully differentiated as Persons. (3) The Father, theSon, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity -- that is,the Bible teaches the deity of the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit. One could possibly represent this as follows:</FONT></P><P><CENTER><FONT face="Verdana"><IMG SRC="Trinity.gif" WIDTH=329HEIGHT=183 X-SAS-UseImageWidth X-SAS-UseImageHeightALIGN=bottom></FONT></CENTER></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">The three sides of the triangle represent thethree biblical doctrines, as labeled. When one denies any of thesethree teachings, the other two sides point to the result. Hence, ifone denies that there are Three Persons, one is left with the twosides of Full Equality and One God, resulting in the "Oneness" or"modalistic" teaching of the United Pentecostal Church and others. Ifone denies Full Equality, one is left with Three Persons and One God,resulting in "subordinationism" as seen in Jehovah's Witnesses, theWay International, and others (though to be perfectly accurate theWitnesses deny all three of the sides in some way -- they deny FullEquality [i.e., Jesus is Michael the Archangel], Three Persons [theHoly Spirit is an impersonal, active "force" like electricity] andOne God [they say Jesus is "a god' ' -- a lesser divinity thanYahweh; hence they are in reality not monotheists but henotheists,believers in one "major" deity, as well as other "minor" deities]).And, if one denies One God, one is left with polytheism, the beliefin many gods, as seen clearly in the Mormon Church.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">I truly hope, Elder Hahn, that you will look intoGod's Word and examine these issues. I am more than happy to provideyou with this information, but I want you to realize that you are nowresponsible for it. You cannot simply ignore the clear teaching ofthe Bible as you have now seen it. You must deal with what God's Wordsays. I reiterate my offer -- if you wish to sit down and talk aboutthese things, please feel free to contact me. May God bless you asyou seek His will.</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">Sincerely,</FONT></P><P><FONT face="Verdana">James White</FONT></P><P><CENTER><FONT SIZE="-1"><HR></FONT></CENTER></BODY></HTML>